Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective: This study aimed to assess the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and compare the performance of the World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension (WHO/ISH) risk prediction score and Framingham risk score (FRS) in predicting CVD risk among pre- and postmenopausal females. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on a total of 293 female subjects with type 2 diabetes at Colombo South Teaching Hospital, Sri Lanka. The 10-year risk of developing CVD was calculated using WHO/ISH charts and FRSs and compared. The tools were validated through the use of elevated LDL-C levels, high diastolic blood pressure, high HbA1c and elevated fasting plasma glucose levels. Results: Among the study population, 25.9%, 54.9%, 50.8%, 98.0% and 0% had dyslipidemia, hypertension, obesity/overweight, central obesity, and smoking, respectively. The CVD risk was significantly greater among postmenopausal women than premenopausal women (p < 0.05). The FRS identified 23.2%, 48.8%, 20.8% and 7.2% of women as low risk ( < 10%), moderate risk (10–19.9%), high risk (20–29.9%) and very high risk (≥ 30%), respectively, whereas the WHO/ISH identified 78.8%, 14.3%, 2.0% and 4.8%, respectively. There was a significant discrepancy in the agreement between the two tools (k value = 0.068, p < 0.05). WHO/ISH charts revealed that the majority of women with elevated LDL-C levels (80.2%) were low-risk individuals, while FRSs identified the majority of women with raised LDL-C levels (92.2%) as moderate/high risk. Conclusions: There was a significant discrepancy in the performance of the WHO/ISH and FRS. WHO/ISH underestimates CVD risk, while the FRS identifies high-risk women who require therapeutic interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weerawickrama et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: