The accuracy of the Framingham risk-score in different socioeconomic groups: a prospective study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The primary prevention of cardiovascular disease involves using the Framingham risk score to identify high risk patients and then prescribe preventive treatments. AIM: To examine the performance of the Framingham risk score in different socioeconomic groups in a population with high rates of cardiovascular disease. DESIGN OF STUDY A prospective study. SETTING: West of Scotland. METHOD: The observed 10-year cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease mortality rates in 5626 men and 6678 women free from cardiovascular disease from the Renfrew/Paisley Study were compared with predicted rates, stratified by socioeconomic class and by area deprivation score. RESULTS: The ratio of predicted to observed cardiovascular mortality rate in the 12 304 men and women with complete risk factor information was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.52 to 0.60), a relative underestimation of 44%. Cardiovascular disease mortality was underestimated by 48% in manual participants (predicted over observed = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.56) compared to 31% in the non-manual participants (predicted over observed = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.81, P = 0.0005). Underestimation was also worse in participants from deprived areas (P = 0.0017). Only 4.8% of individuals had a 10-year cardiovascular risk of >40% (equivalent to >30% 10-year coronary risk), and 81% of deaths occurred in the rest. If the Framingham score had been recalibrated for manual and non-manual members of this population, an additional 3611 individuals mainly from manual social classes would have reached the treatment threshold. CONCLUSION: Currently recommended risk scoring methods underestimate risk in socioeconomically deprived individuals. The likely consequence is that preventive treatments are less available to the most needy.