Efficacy of tailored recommendations to promote healthy lifestyles: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Prevention is the key to stopping the ravages of cardiovascular diseases, the main cause of death worldwide. The objective was to analyze the efficacy of tailored recommendations to promote healthy lifestyles. Parallel-arm randomized controlled trial with 1 year follow-up. Individuals aged 35-74 years from Girona (Spain) randomly selected from a population with no cardiovascular diseases at baseline were included. Participants in the intervention group received a brochure with tailored healthy choices according to the individual risk profile and a trained nurse explained all recommendations in detail in a 30 min consultation. One year changes in smoking, Mediterranean diet adherence, physical activity, and weight were analyzed with McNemar, Student's t, Wilcoxon, and Fisher exact tests according to an intention-to-treat strategy. Of 955 individuals (52.3% women; mean age 50 [±10] years) randomly allocated to the intervention or control group, one participant in each group presented a cardiovascular event and 768 (81%) were reexamined at 1 year follow-up. The prevalence of nonsmokers increased in both the intervention and control groups (78.1%-82.5%, p = <.001, and 76.7% to 78.8%, p = .015, respectively); however, significance persisted only in the intervention group when stratified by sex, age group, and educational level. Adherence to a Mediterranean diet increased in the intervention group (22.3%-26.5%, p = .048). In conclusion, a brief personalized intervention with science-based recommendations according to individual risk profiles appears to improve healthy lifestyles, particularly nonsmoking and adherence to a Mediterranean diet. This promising intervention system offers evidence-based recommendations to develop healthy lifestyles.

Control of cardiovascular risk factors with tailored recommendations: A randomized controlled trial.

This study analyzed the efficacy of tailored recommendations to control cardiovascular risk factors at 1-year follow-up in a population-based randomized controlled trial in individuals aged 35-74 years with no history of cardiovascular disease at baseline. Total, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) were measured at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was the quantitative change in total cholesterol. To estimate the differences within and between groups, McNemar and Student t-tests were applied according to an intention-to-treat strategy. We enrolled 955 individuals [52.3% women; mean age, 50 years (standard deviation 10)]. Finally, 1 participant in each group presented a cardiovascular event and 768 were reexamined at 1-year follow-up. Intervention and control groups showed significant increases in total cholesterol [5.49 (standard deviation 1.02) to 5.56 (1.06) mmol/L and 5.34 (0.94) to 5.43 (0.93) mmol/L, respectively]. Men in the intervention group showed significant decreases in systolic and diastolic BP [117.2 (14.6) to 115.6 mmHg (14.1) and 77.9 (9.7) to 76.5 mmHg (9.7), respectively]; no changes were found in the rates of total cholesterol <5.2 mmol/L and LDL cholesterol <3.0 mmol/L. In the control group, both values were significantly decreased (43.5 to 36.4% and 26.4 to 20.8%, respectively) in men. In the stratified analysis, women showed no differences in any of the outcomes. In conclusion, an intervention with tailored recommendations increased mean total cholesterol values. The intervention effect was higher in men who maintained blood lipids at optimal levels and had decreased BP values.

Validity of a method for the self-screening of cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND: The validity of a cardiovascular risk self-screening method was assessed. The results obtained for self-measurement of blood pressure, a point-of-care system's assessment of lipid profile and glycated hemoglobin, and a self-administered questionnaire (sex, age, diabetes, tobacco consumption) were compared with the standard screening (gold standard) conducted by a health professional. METHODS: Crossover clinical trial on a population-based sample from Girona (north-eastern Spain), aged 35-74, with no cardiovascular disease at recruitment. Participants were randomized to one of the two risk assessment sequences (standard screening followed by self-screening or vice versa). Cardiovascular risk was estimated with the Framingham-REGICOR function. Concordance between methods was estimated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were estimated, considering 5% cardiovascular risk as the cutoff point. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration #NCT02373319. Clinical Research Ethic Committee of the Parc de Salut Mar Registration #2014/5815/I. RESULTS: The median cardiovascular risk in men was 2.56 (interquartile range: 1.42-4.35) estimated by standard methods and 2.25 (1.28-4.07) by self-screening with ICC=0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.93). In women, the cardiovascular risk was 1.14 (0.61-2.10) by standard methods and 1.10 (0.56-2.00) by self-screening, with ICC=0.89 (0.87-0.90). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the self-screening method were 0.74 (0.63-0.82), 0.97 (0.95-0.99), 0.86 (0.77-0.93), and 0.94 (0.91-0.96), respectively, in men. In women, these values were 0.50 (0.30-0.70), 0.99 (0.98-1), 0.81 (0.54-0.96), and 0.97 (0.95-0.99), respectively. CONCLUSION: The self-screening method for assessing cardiovascular risk provided similar results to the standard method. Self-screening had high clinical performance to rule out intermediate or high cardiovascular risk.

Evaluación de la empatía en estudiantes de Medicina / Empathy assessment in medical students

INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: La empatía es la capacidad de transmitir comprensión hacia las emociones de otros individuos. La empatía de los profesionales sanitarios se ha asociado a mejores resultados clínicos y de relación con el paciente. El objetivo del estudio era conocer el nivel de empatía de los estudiantes de Medicina, y su evolución después de recibir un curso sobre Entrevista Clínica y Comunicación. MÉTODOS: Estudio longitudinal prospectivo con intervención (módulo de Comunicación y Entrevista Clínica de un mes de duración) y sin grupo control. La empatía se midió con el cuestionario Índice de Reactividad Interpersonal (IRI) que tiene 2 dimensiones cognitivas (toma de perspectiva y fantasía) y 2 emocionales (preocupación empática y distrés personal). La empatía percibida se obtuvo mediante autoevaluación del 0 al 10. RESULTADOS: Participaron 136 alumnos, un 72% eran mujeres, con una edad media de 20,3 años. La empatía percibida correlacionó con las dimensiones del IRI, excepto con distrés personal. Después de la intervención educativa se observaron incrementos en los hombres en toma de perspectiva (de 16,5 a 17,8; p = 0,005) y en las mujeres en fantasía (de 15,5 a 16,7; p = 0,001), con aumento en ambos sexos de la empatía percibida autoevaluada (de 6,9 a 7,4 en hombres; p = 0,009 y de 7,4 a 7,8 en mujeres; p < 0,001). No se modificaron las dimensiones emocionales de empatía. CONCLUSIONES: Los estudiantes de Medicina no perciben dentro de la empatía el componente de distrés personal, y después de la formación se incrementaron los niveles de empatía cognitiva y percibida

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Empathy is the capacity to place oneself in another's position and understand his/her emotions. Empathy of health professionals has been associated with better clinical outcomes and relationship with the patients. The aim of the study is to define the level of empathy of Medical students and how does it evolve after following a one-month Clinical Interview and Communication training module. METHODS: The study is a non-control prospective longitudinal study. Second year Medical students have followed Clinical interview and Communication training module during one month. Empathy has been measured through the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) questionnaire that has 2 cognitive (perspective taking and fantasy) and 2 emotional (empathic concern and personal distress) dimensions. The perceived empathy was self-assessed using a 1-10 points scale. RESULTS: A sample of 136 students participated on this study (72% women, mean age 20.3 years). The perceived empathy correlates with the size of IRI, except personal distress. Post training intervention scores showed a significant increase in perspective taking dimension among men (from 16.5 to 17.8; P=.005) and fantasy among women (from15.5 to 16.7; P=.001), while self-assessed empathy increased in both sexes (from 6.9 to 7.4 in men; P=.009 and from 7.4 to 7.8 in women; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medical students don't perceive personal distress as an empathy component. After receiving clinical interview and training module, cognitive and perceived empathy were significantly increased

Derivation and validation of REASON: a risk score identifying candidates to screen for peripheral arterial disease using ankle brachial index.

BACKGROUND: The recommendation of screening with ankle brachial index (ABI) in asymptomatic individuals is controversial. The aims of the present study were to develop and validate a pre-screening test to select candidates for ABI measurement in the Spanish population 50-79 years old, and to compare its predictive capacity to current Inter-Society Consensus (ISC) screening criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two population-based cross-sectional studies were used to develop (n = 4046) and validate (n = 3285) a regression model to predict ABI < 0.9. The validation dataset was also used to compare the model's predictive capacity to that of ISC screening criteria. The best model to predict ABI < 0.9 included age, sex, smoking, pulse pressure and diabetes. Assessment of discrimination and calibration in the validation dataset demonstrated a good fit (AUC: 0.76 [95% CI 0.73-0.79] and Hosmer-Lemeshow test: χ(2): 10.73 (df = 6), p-value = 0.097). Predictions (probability cut-off value of 4.1) presented better specificity and positive likelihood ratio than the ABI screening criteria of the ISC guidelines, and similar sensitivity. This resulted in fewer patients screened per diagnosis of ABI < 0.9 (10.6 vs. 8.75) and a lower proportion of the population aged 50-79 years candidate to ABI screening (63.3% vs. 55.0%). CONCLUSION: This model provides accurate ABI < 0.9 risk estimates for ages 50-79, with a better predictive capacity than that of ISC criteria. Its use could reduce possible harms and unnecessary work-ups of ABI screening as a risk stratification strategy in primary prevention of peripheral vascular disease.

Why should population attributable fractions be periodically recalculated? An example from cardiovascular risk estimation in southern Europe.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of age and study period on coronary heart disease (CHD) risk attributable to cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: A cohort of cardiovascular disease (CVD)-free randomly participants from Girona (Spain) aged 35-74 years recruited in 1995 and 2000 and followed for an average of 6.9 years. A survey conducted in the same area in 2005 was also used for the analysis. Smoking, hypertension, diabetes, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, total cholesterol > or = 240 mg/dl, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol > or = 160 mg/dl, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol <40 mg/dl were the risk factors considered. The composite end-point included myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and CHD death. RESULTS: LDL cholesterol had the highest potential for CHD prevention between 35 and 74 years [42% (95% Confidence Interval: 23,58)]. The age-stratified analysis showed that the population attributable risk (PAF) for smoking was 64% (30,80) in subjects < 55 years; for those > or = 55 years, the PAF for hypertension was 34% (1,61). The decrease observed between 1995 and 2005 in the population's mean LDL cholesterol level reduced that PAF in all age groups. CONCLUSION: Overall, LDL cholesterol levels had the highest potential for CHD prevention. Periodic PAF recalculation in different age groups may be required to adequately monitor population trends.

Trends in cardiovascular risk factor prevalence (1995-2000-2005) in northeastern Spain.

BACKGROUND: High prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors has been observed in Spain along with low incidence of acute myocardial infarction. Our objective was to determine the trends of cardiovascular risk factor prevalence between 1995 and 2005 in the 35-74-year-old population of Gerona, Spain. DESIGN: Comparison of cross-sectional studies were conducted in random population samples in 1995, 2000, and 2005 at Gerona, Spain. METHODS: An electrocardiogram was obtained, along with standardized measurements of body mass index, lipid profile, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, glycaemia, energy expenditure in physical activity, smoking, use of lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications, and cardiovascular risk. Prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, and obesity was calculated and standardized for age. RESULTS: A total of 7571 individuals (52.0% women) were included (response rate 72%). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >3.4 mmol/l (130 mg/dl) (49.7%) and hypertension (39.1%) were the most prevalent cardiovascular risk factors. In 1995, 2000 and 2005, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased in both men and women: 4.05-3.91-3.55 mmol/l (156-151-137 mg/dl) and 3.84-3.81-3.40 mmol/l (148-147-131 mg/dl), respectively. Increases were observed in lipid-lowering drug use (5.7-6.3-9.6% in men and 4.0-5.8-8.0% in women), controlled hypertension (14.8-35.4-37.7% in men and 21.3-36.9-45.0% in women); (all P-trends <0.01), and obesity (greatest for men: 17.5-26.0-22.7%, P-trends=0.020). Prevalence of myocardial infarction or possibly abnormal Q waves in electrocardiogram also increased significantly (3.9-4.7-6.4%, P-trends=0.018). CONCLUSIONS: The cardiovascular risk factor prevalence change in Gerona was marked in this decade by a shift of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol distributions to the left, independent of the increase in lipid-lowering drug use, and better hypertension control with increased use of antihypertensive drugs.

[Estimating cardiovascular risk in Spain using different algorithms]. / Rendimiento de la estimación del riesgo cardiovascular en España mediante la utilización de distintas funciones.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Although its incidence is low, cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of morbidity and mortality in Spain. A number of different algorithms can be used to calculate cardiovascular disease risk for primary prevention, but their ability to identify patients who will experience a cardiovascular event is not well understood. The objective of this study was to compare the results of using the original Framingham algorithm and two adaptations for low-risk countries: the REGICOR (Registre Gironí del cor) and SCORE (Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation) algorithms. METHODS: All cardiovascular events during 5-year follow-up in a cohort of patients without coronary disease in nine autonomous Spanish regions were recorded. The levels of different cardiovascular risk factors were measured between 1995 and 1998. Participants were considered high-risk if their 10-year risk was >or=20% with the Framingham algorithm, >or=10%, >or=15% or >or=20% with REGICOR, and >or=5% with SCORE. RESULTS: In total, 180 (3.1%) coronary events (112 in men and 68 in women) occurred among the 5732 (57.3% female) participants during follow-up. Of these, 43 died from cerebrovascular disease, and 24 had a non-coronary vascular event. The REGICOR algorithm had the highest positive predictive value for coronary and cardiovascular disease in all age groups. Moreover, with a 10-year risk limit of 10%, it classified less of the population aged 35-74 years as high-risk (i.e., 12.4%) than the Framingham algorithm (i.e., 22.4%). The SCORE and Framingham algorithms classified 8.4% and 16.6% of the population aged 35-64 years, respectively, as having a high cardiovascular disease risk; with REGICOR, the figure was 7.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The REGICOR adapted algorithm was the best predictor of cardiovascular events and classified a smaller proportion of the Spanish population aged 35-74 years as high risk than alternative algorithms.

Rendimiento de la estimación del riesgo cardiovascular en España mediante la utilización de distintas funciones / Estimating cardiovascular risk in Spain using different algorithms

Introducción y objetivos. A pesar de que presentan una baja incidencia, las enfermedades cardiovasculares son la causa más frecuente de morbimortalidad en España. Se dispone de diversas funciones para calcular el riesgo cardiovascular en la prevención primaria, cuya capacidad para identificar a los pacientes que desarrollarán acontecimientos cardiovasculares es poco conocida. Comparamos el rendimiento de las funciones de Framingham original, adaptada de REGICOR (Registre Gironí del Cor) y SCORE (Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation) para países de bajo riesgo. Métodos. Se registraron todos los acontecimientos cardiovasculares en un seguimiento de 5 años de una cohorte sin enfermedad coronaria en 9 comunidades autónomas. Se midieron los factores de riesgo cardiovascular entre 1995 y 1998. Se consideró que el riesgo era elevado a los 10 años en ≥ 20% para Framingham, ≥ 10, ≥ 15 y ≥ 20% para REGICOR y ≥ 5% para SCORE. Resultados. Se produjeron 180 (3,1%) acontecimientos coronarios (112 en varones y 68 en mujeres) en las 5.732 personas (57,3% de mujeres) en las que se realizó el seguimiento. Se produjo muerte cerebrovascular en 43 personas, así como 24 acontecimientos vasculares no coronarios. Con la función REGICOR se obtuvo el mayor valor predictivo positivo para enfermedad coronaria y cardiovascular a cualquier edad, y, tomando un límite de 10% de riesgo a los 10 años, se clasificó a menos población de alto riesgo de 35-74 años (12,4%) que con la función de Framingham (22,4%). SCORE y Framingham clasificaron al 8,4 y al 16,6% de la población de 35-64 años como de alto riesgo cardiovascular y REGICOR, al 7,5%. Conclusiones. La función adaptada de REGICOR es la opción aplicable hasta los 74 años que muestra el mejor equilibrio en la capacidad de clasificación de riesgo de acontecimientos cardiovasculares. Su aplicación permite la clasificación de alto riesgo a individuos con un perfil más adecuado para ser candidatos a tratamiento hipolipemiante (AU)

Introduction and objectives. Although its incidence is low, cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of morbidity and mortality in Spain. A number of different algorithms can be used to calculate cardiovascular disease risk for primary prevention, but their ability to identify patients who will experience a cardiovascular event is not well understood. The objective of this study was to compare the results of using the original Framingham algorithm and two adaptations for low-risk countries: the REGICOR (Registre Gironí del cor) and SCORE (Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation) algorithms. Methods. All cardiovascular events during 5-year follow-up in a cohort of patients without coronary disease in nine autonomous Spanish regions were recorded. The levels of different cardiovascular risk factors were measured between 1995 and 1998. Participants were considered high-risk if their 10-year risk was ≥20% with the Framingham algorithm, ≥10%, ≥15% or ≥20% with REGICOR, and ≥5% with SCORE. Results. In total, 180 (3.1%) coronary events (112 in men and 68 in women) occurred among the 5732 (57.3% female) participants during follow-up. Of these, 43 died from cerebrovascular disease, and 24 had a non-coronary vascular event. The REGICOR algorithm had the highest positive predictive value for coronary and cardiovascular disease in all age groups. Moreover, with a 10-year risk limit of 10%, it classified less of the population aged 35-74 years as high-risk (i.e., 12.4%) than the Framingham algorithm (i.e., 22.4%). The SCORE and Framingham algorithms classified 8.4% and 16.6% of the population aged 35-64 years, respectively, as having a high cardiovascular disease risk; with REGICOR, the figure was 7.5%. Conclusions. The REGICOR adapted algorithm was the best predictor of cardiovascular events and classified a smaller proportion of the Spanish population aged 35-74 years as high risk than alternative algorithms (AU)

Validity of an adaptation of the Framingham cardiovascular risk function: the VERIFICA Study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the reliability and accuracy of the Framingham coronary heart disease (CHD) risk function adapted by the Registre Gironí del Cor (REGICOR) investigators in Spain. METHODS: A 5-year follow-up study was completed in 5732 participants aged 35-74 years. The adaptation consisted of using in the function the average population risk factor prevalence and the cumulative incidence observed in Spain instead of those from Framingham in a Cox proportional hazards model. Reliability and accuracy in estimating the observed cumulative incidence were tested with the area under the curve comparison and goodness-of-fit test, respectively. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier CHD cumulative incidence during the follow-up was 4.0% in men and 1.7% in women. The original Framingham function and the REGICOR adapted estimates were 10.4% and 4.8%, and 3.6% and 2.0%, respectively. The REGICOR-adapted function's estimate did not differ from the observed cumulated incidence (goodness of fit in men, p = 0.078, in women, p = 0.256), whereas all the original Framingham function estimates differed significantly (p<0.001). Reliabilities of the original Framingham function and of the best Cox model fit with the study data were similar in men (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve 0.68 and 0.69, respectively, p = 0.273), whereas the best Cox model fitted better in women (0.73 and 0.81, respectively, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The Framingham function adapted to local population characteristics accurately and reliably predicted the 5-year CHD risk for patients aged 35-74 years, in contrast with the original function, which consistently overestimated the actual risk.

[Comparison of population coronary heart disease risk estimated by the Framingham original and REGICOR calibrated functions]. / Comparación de la función de Framingham original y la calibrada del REGICOR en la predicción del riesgo coronario poblacional.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The therapeutic consequences of using the Framingham function calibrated by the REGICOR and Framingham investigators (Framingham-REGICOR) in the Spanish population are unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the differences in the classification of the population coronary risk when using the classical Framingham function (Framingham-Wilson) and that calibrated, and its consequences on the theoretical indication of lipid-lowering treatment. PATIENTS AND METHOD: The classification into the < 2%, 2-4,9%, 5-9,9%, 10-19,9%, 20-39,9%, and >= 40% risk categories observed by the two functions was compared in 3.270 individuals aged 35 to 74 years with no history of ischaemic heart disease or lipid-lowering drug treatment, recruited in two population samples representative of Girona between 1994 and 2001. The number of lipid-lowering treatment candidates was estimated applying the most recent guidelines for clinical practice, according to the risk level obtained with both functions. RESULTS: The proportion of patients excluded owing to the fact that they already were on lipid-lowering treatment was 6.2%. The Framingham-REGICOR assigned 54.2% of women and 67.9% of men to a lower level of risk as compared to the Framingham-Wilson function. In 0.2% of women and 21.2% of men the decrease was two categories of risk. The figures in diabetic participants were 75.7 and 18.5%, respectively. When the European recommendations published in 2003 were applied, lipid-lowering treatment would have been indicated in 14.5% and in 4.4% of non-diabetic participants by the Framingham-Wilson and the Framingham-REGICOR, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The calibrated Framingham-REGICOR function assigns a lower coronary risk category in more than 50% of women and almost 90% of men than the uncalibrated Framingham function. The calibrated function is more suitable for risk estimation in primary prevention than the original function in Spain.

Comparación de la función de Framingham original y la calibrada del REGICOR en la predicción del riesgo coronario poblacional / Comparison of population coronary heart disease risk estimated by the Framingham original and REGICOR calibrated functions

FUNDAMENTO Y OBJETIVO: Se desconocen las implicaciones terapéuticas derivadas del uso de la función de riesgo coronario de Framingham calibrada por los investigadores de los estudios REGICOR y Framingham (Framingham-REGICOR) para la población española. El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar las diferencias en la clasificación del riesgo de la población de 35 a 74 años usando la función de Framingham clásica (Framingham-Wilson) y la calibrada y sus consecuencias en la indicación de tratamiento hipolipemiante con las guías de práctica clínica. PACIENTES Y MÉTODO: Se comparó la clasificación en las categorías de riesgo a 10 años de < 2 por ciento, 2-4,9 por ciento, 5-9,9 por ciento, 10-19,9 por ciento, 20-39,9 por ciento y 40 por ciento observada mediante ambas funciones en 3.270 individuos de entre 35 y 74 años sin antecedentes de cardiopatía isquémica ni tratamiento hipolipemiante, provenientes de 2 muestras poblacionales representativas de la provincia de Girona, reclutadas entre 1994 y 2001. Se calculó el número de candidatos a tratamiento hipolipemiante según las guías vigentes de práctica clínica y las 2 funciones. RESULTADOS: Un 5,9 por ciento del total de la muestra recibía tratamiento hipolipemiante en el momento del examen. La función Framingham-REGICOR asignó al 54,2 por ciento de las mujeres y al 67,9 por ciento de los varones no diabéticos a una categoría de riesgo inferior que la función Framingham-Wilson. El 0,2 por ciento de las mujeres y el 21,2 por ciento de los varones descendieron dos categorías. Un 75,7 por ciento de los participantes diabéticos descendió una categoría y el 18,5 por ciento descendió dos. Con las guías europeas de 2003 recibirían hipolipemiantes el 14,5 y el 4,4 por ciento de participantes no diabéticos usando las funciones de Framingham-Wilson y Framingham-REGICOR, respectivamente. CONCLUSIONES: La función calibrada de Framingham-REGICOR adjudica una categoría de riesgo coronario menor que la de Framingham original en más del 50 por ciento de mujeres y casi el 90 por ciento de varones. Es una herramienta más recomendable que ésta en la prevención primaria de la enfermedad coronaria en España (AU)

[Coronary risk estimation in Spain using a calibrated Framingham function]. / Estimación del riesgo coronario en España mediante la ecuación de Framingham calibrada.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The Framingham coronary heart disease (CHD) functions overestimate the risk of CHD in countries with a low incidence. Consequently, these functions should be calibrated for the purpose of primary prevention. Calibrated Framingham function charts of overall CHD risk for the Spanish population are presented. Patients and methods. The Framingham functions were calibrated by substituting the prevalence of CHD risk factors and incidence found in Framingham with the same values for Spain. The Framingham function that included high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol was used. The 10-year probability of developing a CHD event was estimated for several combinations of risk factors and HDL levels ranging from 35 to 59 mg/dl. Color-coded charts were prepared that show the exact probability of CHD corresponding to each combination of risk factors, shown in separate cells on the chart. RESULTS: The event rate and prevalence of CHD risk factors differed considerably between Girona and Framingham. HDL < 35 mg/dL increased risk by approximately 50% and HDL > 60 mg/dL reduced it by 50%. The proportion of cells in which the 10-year probability of developing a CHD event was > 9% was 2.3 times higher and that of cells with a probability > 19% was 13 times lower in the chart calibrated for Spain than in the original Framingham charts. CONCLUSIONS: The calibrated Framingham function may help to more accurately estimate the overall risk of CHD in the Spanish population for primary prevention purposes. The calibrated function should be validated, and the development of functions for the Spanish population should be promoted.

Estimación del riesgo coronario en España mediante la ecuación de Framingham calibrada / Coronary Risk Estimation in Spain Using a Calibrated Framingham Function

Introducción y objetivos. Las ecuaciones de Framingham sobrestiman el riesgo de enfermedad coronaria en los países cuya incidencia es baja. En éstos, la ecuación debería adaptarse para la correcta prevención de la enfermedad coronaria. Se presentan las tablas de riesgo coronario global de Framingham calibradas para la población española. Pacientes y método. Se utilizó el procedimiento de calibración de la ecuación de Framingham, consistente en sustituir la prevalencia de factores de riesgo cardiovascular y la tasa de incidencia de acontecimientos coronarios de Framingham por las de nuestro medio. Se ha usado la ecuación de Framingham, que incluye el colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de alta densidad (cHDL). Se han calculado las probabilidades de acontecimiento a los 10 años y se han elaborado unas tablas con códigos de color y la probabilidad exacta en cada casilla correspondiente a las distintas combinaciones de los factores de riesgo clásicos, para una concentración de cHDL de 35-59 mg/dl. Resultados. Las tasas de acontecimientos coronarios y la prevalencia de factores de riesgo difieren considerablemente entre la población estudiada y Framingham. Valores de cHDL 60 mg/dl lo reducen en un 50 por ciento, aproximadamente. La proporción de casillas con una probabilidad de acontecimiento coronario a los 10 años superior al 9 por ciento es 2,3 veces menor, y la de casillas con una probabilidad > 19 por ciento es 13 veces menor en las tablas calibradas que en las originales de Framingham. Conclusiones. La función de Framingham calibrada puede constituir un instrumento para estimar con más precisión el riesgo coronario global en la prevención primaria de esta enfermedad en España. Su uso debe acompañarse de una validación apropiada y se debe trabajar en la elaboración de ecuaciones propias españolas (AU)