Key result
SCORE2 charts upclassify cardiovascular risk in ~19% of patients compared to underlying equations.
Why the study?
Do SCORE2/SCORE2-OP charts assign the same cardiovascular risk category as the underlying equations in primary care patients?
Cross-Sectional (n=6,621)
Yes
Do SCORE2/SCORE2-OP charts assign the same cardiovascular risk category as the underlying equations in primary care patients?
SCORE2/SCORE2-OP charts tend to overestimate cardiovascular risk relative to the core risk models, suggesting that digital calculators applying the exact equations may be more accurate for determining treatment indications.
Purpose To compare the estimates provided by the SCORE2/SCORE2-OP charts with the estimates obtained by using untransformed SCORE2 and SCORE2-OP equations presented in their respective original papers. Methods A sample of 13,724 Polish primary care patients was studied. Patients were recruited from 16 major Polish administrative regions proportionally to the number of inhabitants. Each eligible patient was assigned SCORE2/SCORE2-OP risk estimate and category via SCORE2 chart and the equations for high risk countries provided in the original SCORE2/SCORE2-OP papers. Results After excluding patients with risk parameters exceeding permitted values and with comorbidities putting them in high risk category regardless of other factors, a total 6,621 patients were included in the analysis. A total of 2,164 (32.7%) patients had the equation-based estimate at least 20% lower than SCORE2 chart estimate, while a 20% higher equation-based estimate was found in only 382 (5.6%) patients; the assigned risks differed significantly (p<0.0001, Wilcoxon rank test). It was also found that SCORE2 charts assigned 1,277 (19.3%) patients to a higher risk category and only 122 (1.8%) of the patients to a lower category (p<0.001 for overall differences in risk category assignment, McNemar-Bowker test). When the differences in average SCORE2/SCORE2-OP estimates provided by SCORE2 charts and equations were plotted against the parameters used in the SCORE2 charts, a clear saw-tooth pattern emerged for SBP, age, and non-HDL (Picture 1; negative values correspond to lower estimate being provided by equations), which reflects the fact that SCORE2 charts display a clear tendency to overestimate risk at the lower boundary of each SBP, age and non-HDL interval. Additionally, a clear bias toward risk overestimation at higher HDL concentrations was observed due to the fact that SCORE2 charts simplify HDL and total cholesterol into non-HDL (likelihood of misclassification by the SCORE2 charts vs. HDL is presented in Picture 2). Conclusions SCORE2/SCORE2-OP charts tend to overestimate cardiovascular risk relative to the core SCORE2/SCORE2-OP risk models. The use of calculators that directly apply the model might help to more accurately determine the indications for blood pressure- and lipid-lowering therapies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Golawski et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular risk assessment (n=6,621). SCORE2/SCORE2-OP charts vs. SCORE2/SCORE2-OP equations was evaluated on Difference in risk category assignment (p=<0.001). SCORE2 and SCORE2-OP charts assigned 19.3% of primary care patients to a higher cardiovascular risk category compared to the underlying equations (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: