Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 11/2010

Open Access 01-11-2010 | Original Research

Coronary Risk Assessment by Point-Based vs. Equation-Based Framingham Models: Significant Implications for Clinical Care

Authors: William J. Gordon, BA, Jesse M. Polansky, MD, MPH, W. John Boscardin, PhD, Kathy Z. Fung, MS, Michael A. Steinman, MD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 11/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

BACKGROUND

US cholesterol guidelines use original and simplified versions of the Framingham model to estimate future coronary risk and thereby classify patients into risk groups with different treatment strategies. We sought to compare risk estimates and risk group classification generated by the original, complex Framingham model and the simplified, point-based version.

METHODS

We assessed 2,543 subjects age 20–79 from the 2001–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) for whom Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III) guidelines recommend formal risk stratification. For each subject, we calculated the 10-year risk of major coronary events using the original and point-based Framingham models, and then compared differences in these risk estimates and whether these differences would place subjects into different ATP-III risk groups (<10% risk, 10–20% risk, or >20% risk). Using standard procedures, all analyses were adjusted for survey weights, clustering, and stratification to make our results nationally representative.

RESULTS

Among 39 million eligible adults, the original Framingham model categorized 71% of subjects as having “moderate” risk (<10% risk of a major coronary event in the next 10 years), 22% as having “moderately high” (10–20%) risk, and 7% as having “high” (>20%) risk. Estimates of coronary risk by the original and point-based models often differed substantially. The point-based system classified 15% of adults (5.7 million) into different risk groups than the original model, with 10% (3.9 million) misclassified into higher risk groups and 5% (1.8 million) into lower risk groups, for a net impact of classifying 2.1 million adults into higher risk groups. These risk group misclassifications would impact guideline-recommended drug treatment strategies for 25–46% of affected subjects. Patterns of misclassifications varied significantly by gender, age, and underlying CHD risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the original Framingham model, the point-based version misclassifies millions of Americans into risk groups for which guidelines recommend different treatment strategies.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Jama. 2001;285:2486-97. Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Jama. 2001;285:2486-97.
2.
go back to reference Sullivan LM, Massaro JM, D'Agostino RB Sr. Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: The Framingham Study risk score functions. Stat Med. 2004;23:1631–60.CrossRefPubMed Sullivan LM, Massaro JM, D'Agostino RB Sr. Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: The Framingham Study risk score functions. Stat Med. 2004;23:1631–60.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110:227–39.CrossRefPubMed Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110:227–39.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Sheridan S, Pignone M, Mulrow C. Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:1039–52.CrossRefPubMed Sheridan S, Pignone M, Mulrow C. Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:1039–52.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Epocrates Rx STAT Cholesterol application on Palm Pilot portable digital assistant platform. Available at: www.epocrates.com. Accessed June 17, 2010. Epocrates Rx STAT Cholesterol application on Palm Pilot portable digital assistant platform. Available at: www.​epocrates.​com. Accessed June 17, 2010.
6.
go back to reference Persell SD, Lloyd-Jones DM, Baker DW. National Cholesterol Education Program risk assessment and potential for risk misclassification. Prev Med. 2006;43:368–71.CrossRefPubMed Persell SD, Lloyd-Jones DM, Baker DW. National Cholesterol Education Program risk assessment and potential for risk misclassification. Prev Med. 2006;43:368–71.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Ajani UA, Ford ES. Two approaches of coronary risk assessment–do they work? Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:765–7.CrossRefPubMed Ajani UA, Ford ES. Two approaches of coronary risk assessment–do they work? Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:765–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Fedder DO, Koro CE, L'Italien GJ. New National Cholesterol Education Program III guidelines for primary prevention lipid-lowering drug therapy: projected impact on the size, sex, and age distribution of the treatment-eligible population. Circulation. 2002;105:152–6.CrossRefPubMed Fedder DO, Koro CE, L'Italien GJ. New National Cholesterol Education Program III guidelines for primary prevention lipid-lowering drug therapy: projected impact on the size, sex, and age distribution of the treatment-eligible population. Circulation. 2002;105:152–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Persell SD, Lloyd-Jones DM, Baker DW. Implications of changing national cholesterol education program goals for the treatment and control of hypercholesterolemia. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:171–6.PubMed Persell SD, Lloyd-Jones DM, Baker DW. Implications of changing national cholesterol education program goals for the treatment and control of hypercholesterolemia. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:171–6.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Royston P. Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal. 2004;4:227–241. Royston P. Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal. 2004;4:227–241.
13.
go back to reference van Buuren S, Boshuizen HC, Knook DL. Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine. 1999;18:681–694.CrossRefPubMed van Buuren S, Boshuizen HC, Knook DL. Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine. 1999;18:681–694.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Wilson PW, D'Agostino RB, Levy D, Belanger AM, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97:1837–47.PubMed Wilson PW, D'Agostino RB, Levy D, Belanger AM, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97:1837–47.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Wilson PWF, Pencina MJ, Jacques P, Selhub J, D'Agostino R Sr, O'Donnell CJ. C-reactive protein and reclassification of cardiovascular risk in the Framingham Heart Study. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008;1:92–97.CrossRefPubMed Wilson PWF, Pencina MJ, Jacques P, Selhub J, D'Agostino R Sr, O'Donnell CJ. C-reactive protein and reclassification of cardiovascular risk in the Framingham Heart Study. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008;1:92–97.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Janes H, Pepe MS, Gu W. Assessing the value of risk predictions by using risk stratification tables. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:751–60.PubMed Janes H, Pepe MS, Gu W. Assessing the value of risk predictions by using risk stratification tables. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:751–60.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Cook NR, Ridker PM. Advances in measuring the effect of individual predictors of cardiovascular risk: the role of reclassification measures. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:795–802.PubMed Cook NR, Ridker PM. Advances in measuring the effect of individual predictors of cardiovascular risk: the role of reclassification measures. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:795–802.PubMed
19.
go back to reference Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Unintended effects of statins in men and women in England and Wales: population based cohort study using the QResearch database. BMJ;340:c2197. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Unintended effects of statins in men and women in England and Wales: population based cohort study using the QResearch database. BMJ;340:c2197.
20.
go back to reference Law MR, Wald NJ, Thompson SG. By how much and how quickly does reduction in serum cholesterol concentration lower risk of ischaemic heart disease? BMJ. 1994;308:367–72.PubMed Law MR, Wald NJ, Thompson SG. By how much and how quickly does reduction in serum cholesterol concentration lower risk of ischaemic heart disease? BMJ. 1994;308:367–72.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Law MR, Wald NJ, Rudnicka AR. Quantifying effect of statins on low density lipoprotein cholesterol, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003;326:1423.CrossRefPubMed Law MR, Wald NJ, Rudnicka AR. Quantifying effect of statins on low density lipoprotein cholesterol, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003;326:1423.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Hayward RA, Hofer TP, Vijan S. Narrative review: lack of evidence for recommended low-density lipoprotein treatment targets: a solvable problem. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:520–30.PubMed Hayward RA, Hofer TP, Vijan S. Narrative review: lack of evidence for recommended low-density lipoprotein treatment targets: a solvable problem. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:520–30.PubMed
23.
go back to reference Tinetti ME, Bogardus ST Jr, Agostini JV. Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2870–4.CrossRefPubMed Tinetti ME, Bogardus ST Jr, Agostini JV. Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2870–4.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
go back to reference Pignone M, Earnshaw S, Tice JA, Pletcher MJ. Aspirin, statins, or both drugs for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease events in men: a cost-utility analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:326–36.PubMed Pignone M, Earnshaw S, Tice JA, Pletcher MJ. Aspirin, statins, or both drugs for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease events in men: a cost-utility analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:326–36.PubMed
26.
go back to reference Ward S, Lloyd Jones M, Pandor A, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1–160. iii-iv. Ward S, Lloyd Jones M, Pandor A, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1–160. iii-iv.
27.
go back to reference Reidenberg MM. Benefit/risk ratio of statins in primary prevention. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83:498–500.CrossRefPubMed Reidenberg MM. Benefit/risk ratio of statins in primary prevention. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83:498–500.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Golomb BA, McGraw JJ, Evans MA, Dimsdale JE. Physician response to patient reports of adverse drug effects: implications for patient-targeted adverse effect surveillance. Drug Saf. 2007;30:669–75.CrossRefPubMed Golomb BA, McGraw JJ, Evans MA, Dimsdale JE. Physician response to patient reports of adverse drug effects: implications for patient-targeted adverse effect surveillance. Drug Saf. 2007;30:669–75.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Criqui MH, Golomb BA. Low and lowered cholesterol and total mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1009–10.CrossRefPubMed Criqui MH, Golomb BA. Low and lowered cholesterol and total mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1009–10.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Pletcher MJ, Lazar L, Bibbins-Domingo K, et al. Comparing impact and cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for lipid-lowering. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:243–54.PubMed Pletcher MJ, Lazar L, Bibbins-Domingo K, et al. Comparing impact and cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for lipid-lowering. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:243–54.PubMed
31.
go back to reference National Cholesterol Education Program. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III): Final Report. National Institutes of Health Publication No. 02-5215; 2002. National Cholesterol Education Program. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III): Final Report. National Institutes of Health Publication No. 02-5215; 2002.
32.
go back to reference Fornasini M, Brotons C, Sellares J, et al. Consequences of using different methods to assess cardiovascular risk in primary care. Fam Pract. 2006;23:28–33.CrossRefPubMed Fornasini M, Brotons C, Sellares J, et al. Consequences of using different methods to assess cardiovascular risk in primary care. Fam Pract. 2006;23:28–33.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference D'Agostino RB Sr, Grundy S, Sullivan LM, Wilson P. Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation. JAMA. 2001;286:180–7.CrossRefPubMed D'Agostino RB Sr, Grundy S, Sullivan LM, Wilson P. Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation. JAMA. 2001;286:180–7.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Simmons RK, Sharp S, Boekholdt SM, et al. Evaluation of the Framingham risk score in the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk cohort: does adding glycated hemoglobin improve the prediction of coronary heart disease events? Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1209–16.CrossRefPubMed Simmons RK, Sharp S, Boekholdt SM, et al. Evaluation of the Framingham risk score in the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk cohort: does adding glycated hemoglobin improve the prediction of coronary heart disease events? Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1209–16.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference D'Agostino RB Sr, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2008;117:743–53.CrossRefPubMed D'Agostino RB Sr, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2008;117:743–53.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Brindle P, Emberson J, Lampe F, et al. Predictive accuracy of the Framingham coronary risk score in British men: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2003;327:1267.CrossRefPubMed Brindle P, Emberson J, Lampe F, et al. Predictive accuracy of the Framingham coronary risk score in British men: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2003;327:1267.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Manuel DG, Kwong K, Tanuseputro P, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of different guidelines on statin treatment for preventing deaths from coronary heart disease: modelling study. BMJ. 2006;332:1419.CrossRefPubMed Manuel DG, Kwong K, Tanuseputro P, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of different guidelines on statin treatment for preventing deaths from coronary heart disease: modelling study. BMJ. 2006;332:1419.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Ellner A. Making sense of risk information on the web. BMJ. 2003;327:695–6.CrossRefPubMed Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Ellner A. Making sense of risk information on the web. BMJ. 2003;327:695–6.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Coronary Risk Assessment by Point-Based vs. Equation-Based Framingham Models: Significant Implications for Clinical Care
Authors
William J. Gordon, BA
Jesse M. Polansky, MD, MPH
W. John Boscardin, PhD
Kathy Z. Fung, MS
Michael A. Steinman, MD
Publication date
01-11-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 11/2010
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1454-2

Other articles of this Issue 11/2010

Journal of General Internal Medicine 11/2010 Go to the issue

Healing Arts: Materia Medica

Six Words

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine