Improving 10-year cardiovascular risk prediction in apparently healthy people: flexible addition of risk modifiers on top of SCORE2.

AIMS: In clinical practice, factors associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) like albuminuria, education level, or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are often known, but not incorporated in cardiovascular risk prediction models. The aims of the current study were to evaluate a methodology for the flexible addition of risk modifying characteristics on top of SCORE2 and to quantify the added value of several clinically relevant risk modifying characteristics. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individuals without previous CVD or DM were included from the UK Biobank; Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC); Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA); European Prospective Investigation into Cancer, The Netherlands (EPIC-NL); and Heinz Nixdorf Recall (HNR) studies (n = 409 757) in whom 16 166 CVD events and 19 149 non-cardiovascular deaths were observed over exactly 10.0 years of follow-up. The effect of each possible risk modifying characteristic was derived using competing risk-adjusted Fine and Gray models. The risk modifying characteristics were applied to individual predictions with a flexible method using the population prevalence and the subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) of the relevant predictor. Risk modifying characteristics that increased discrimination most were CAC percentile with 0.0198 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.0115; 0.0281] and hs-Troponin-T with 0.0100 (95% CI 0.0063; 0.0137). External validation was performed in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) cohort (UK, n = 518 015, 12 675 CVD events). Adjustment of SCORE2-predicted risks with both single and multiple risk modifiers did not negatively affect calibration and led to a modest increase in discrimination [0.740 (95% CI 0.736-0.745) vs. unimproved SCORE2 risk C-index 0.737 (95% CI 0.732-0.741)]. CONCLUSION: The current paper presents a method on how to integrate possible risk modifying characteristics that are not included in existing CVD risk models for the prediction of CVD event risk in apparently healthy people. This flexible methodology improves the accuracy of predicted risks and increases applicability of prediction models for individuals with additional risk known modifiers.

Heart disease is a major health concern worldwide, and predicting an individual's risk for developing heart disease is an important tool for prevention. Current risk prediction models often use factors such as age, gender, smoking, and blood pressure, but other factors like education level, albuminuria (protein in the urine), and coronary artery calcium (CAC) may also affect an individual's risk. The aim of this study was to develop a new method for using these additional risk factors for predicting risk even more accurately. The researchers used data from several large studies that included over 400 000 apparently healthy individuals who were followed for 10 years. They examined the effect of various risk factors on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk using a statistical model. They found that adding coronary scan ('CAC score'); NT-proBNP, a biomarker of heart strain; and hs-Troponin-T, a marker of heart damage, to the existing risk prediction model (SCORE2) improved the accuracy of predicted CVD risk. The key findings are: The methods presented in the current study can help to add additional risk factors to predictions of existing models, such as SCORE2. This flexible method may help identify individuals who are at higher risk for CVD and guide prevention strategies.

The Number of Concomitant Drugs and the Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Routine Care Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

Background The benefit of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) on major bleeding was less prominent among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with polypharmacy in post-hoc randomized controlled trials analyses. Whether this phenomenon also exists in routine care is unknown. The aim of the study is to investigate whether the number of concomitant drugs prescribed modifies safety and effectiveness of DOACs compared with VKAs in AF patients treated in general practice. Study Design Adult, nonvalvular AF patients with a first DOAC or VKA prescription between January 2010 and July 2018 were included, using data from the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Primary outcome was major bleeding, secondary outcomes included types of major bleeding, nonmajor bleeding, ischemic stroke, and all-cause mortality. Effect modification was assessed using Cox proportional hazard regression, stratified for the number of concomitant drugs into three strata (0-5, 6-8, ≥9 drugs), and by including the continuous variable in an interaction term with the exposure (DOAC vs. VKA). Results A total of 63,600 patients with 146,059 person-years of follow-up were analyzed (39,840 person-years of DOAC follow-up). The median age was 76 years in both groups, the median number of concomitant drugs prescribed was 7. Overall, the hazard of major bleeding was similar between VKA-users and DOAC-users (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.11), though for apixaban a reduction in major bleeding was observed (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.68-0.98). Risk of stroke was comparable, while risk of nonmajor bleeding was lower in DOAC users compared with VKA users (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.88-0.97). We did not observe any evidence for an impact of polypharmacy on the relative risk of major bleeding between VKA and DOAC across our predefined three strata of concomitant drug use ( p -value for interaction = 0.65). For mortality, however, risk of mortality was highest among DOAC users, increasing with polypharmacy and independent of the type of DOAC prescribed ( p -value for interaction <0.01). Conclusion In this large observational, population-wide study of AF patients, risk of bleeding, and ischemic stroke were comparable between DOACs and VKAs, irrespective of the number of concomitant drugs prescribed. In AF patients with increasing polypharmacy, our data appeared to suggest an unexplained yet increased risk of mortality in DOAC-treated patients, compared with VKA recipients.