RAPID COMMUNICATION

Performance of the QRISK cardiovascular risk prediction algorithm in an independent UK sample of patients from general practice: a validation study

J Hippisley-Cox¹, C Coupland¹, Y Vinogradova¹, J Robson², P Brindle³

¹ Division of Primary Care, University Park, Nottingham, UK
² Centre for Health Sciences, Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
³ Avon Primary Care Research Collaborative, Bristol Primary Care Trust, Bristol, UK

Professor J Hippisley-Cox, Division of Primary Care, 13th Floor, Tower Building, University Park, Nottingham NG2 7RD, UK; Julia.hippisley-cox{at}nottingham.ac.uk

Aim: To assess the performance of the QRISK score for predicting cardiovascular disease (CVD) in an independent UK sample from general practice and compare with the Framingham score.

Design: Prospective open cohort study

Setting: UK general practices contributing to the THIN and QRESEARCH databases.

Cohort: The THIN validation cohort consisted of 1.07 million patients, aged 35–74 years registered at 288 THIN practices between 1 January 1995 and 1 April 2006. The QRESEARCH validation cohort consisted of 0.61 million patients from 160 practices (one-third of the full database) with data until 1 January 2007. Patients receiving statins, those with diabetes or CVD at baseline were excluded.

End point: First diagnosis of CVD (myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke and transient ischaemic attack) recorded on the clinical computer system during the study period.

Exposures: Age, sex, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, total/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio, body mass index, family history of premature CHD, deprivation and antihypertensive medication.

Results: Characteristics of both cohorts were similar, except that THIN patients were from slightly more affluent areas and had lower recording of family history of CHD. QRISK performed better than Framingham for every discrimination and calibration statistic in both cohorts. Framingham overpredicted risk by 23% in the THIN cohort, while QRISK underpredicted risk by 12%.

Conclusion: This analysis demonstrated that QRISK is better calibrated to the UK population than Framingham and has better discrimination. The results suggest that QRISK is likely to provide more appropriate risk estimates than Framingham to help identify patients at high risk of CVD in the UK.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Cardiovascular risk prediction: are we there yet?

Rod Jackson
Heart 2008 94: 1-3. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Hippisley-Cox, J., Coupland, C. (2009). Predicting risk of osteoporotic fracture in men and women in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QFractureScores. BMJ 339: b4229-b4229 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Myles, P. R., Hubbard, R. B., Gibson, J. E., Pogson, Z., Smith, C. J. P., McKeever, T. M. (2009). Pneumonia mortality in a UK general practice population cohort. Eur J Public Health 19: 521-526 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Cooney, M. T., Dudina, A. L., Graham, I. M. (2009). Value and limitations of existing scores for the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a review for clinicians.. J Am Coll Cardiol 54: 1209-1227 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Collins, G. S, Altman, D. G (2009). An independent external validation and evaluation of QRISK cardiovascular risk prediction: a prospective open cohort study. BMJ 339: b2584-b2584 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Jackson, R., Marshall, R., Kerr, A., Riddell, T., Wells, S. (2009). QRISK or Framingham for predicting cardiovascular risk?. BMJ 339: b2673-b2673 [Full Text]  
• Patel, A. (2009). Cardiovascular risk: who should we treat, and how much should we stratify?. Heart 95: 783-784 [Full Text]  
• Raine, R., Wong, W., Ambler, G., Hardoon, S., Petersen, I., Morris, R., Bartley, M., Blane, D. (2009). Sociodemographic variations in the contribution of secondary drug prevention to stroke survival at middle and older ages: cohort study. BMJ 338: b1279-b1279 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hippisley-Cox, J., Coupland, C., Robson, J., Sheikh, A., Brindle, P. (2009). Predicting risk of type 2 diabetes in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QDScore. BMJ 338: b880-b880 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Fiscella, K., Tancredi, D. (2008). Socioeconomic Status and Coronary Heart Disease Risk Prediction. JAMA 300: 2666-2668 [Full Text]  
• McGeechan, K., Macaskill, P., Irwig, L., Liew, G., Wong, T. Y. (2008). Assessing New Biomarkers and Predictive Models for Use in Clinical Practice: A Clinician's Guide. Arch Intern Med 168: 2304-2310 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Jackson, R., Wells, S., Rodgers, A. (2008). Will screening individuals at high risk of cardiovascular events deliver large benefits? Yes. BMJ 337: a1371-a1371 [Full Text]  
• Hippisley-Cox, J., Coupland, C., Vinogradova, Y., Robson, J., Minhas, R., Sheikh, A., Brindle, P. (2008). Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2. BMJ 336: 1475-1482 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Jackson, R. (2008). Cardiovascular risk prediction: are we there yet?. Heart 94: 1-3 [Full Text]  

eLetters:

Read all eLetters

QRISK - Limitations in Validation?

Marie Therese Cooney, et al.

Online, 8 May 2008 [Full text]