Key result
Omani T2DM risk model achieves good discrimination with an AUC of 0.70 but overestimates risk.
Why the study?
A recently developed cardiovascular disease risk model for Omani patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus required external validation.
Does a locally developed cardiovascular risk model accurately predict 5-year CVD events in Omani patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?
Cohort (n=809)
Yes
Does a locally developed cardiovascular risk model accurately predict 5-year CVD events in Omani patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.70 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.78)
The locally developed CVD risk model for Omani patients with T2DM shows good discrimination but requires recalibration due to risk overestimation before clinical implementation.
Risk overestimation cautions against clinical use in Omani T2DM; leaves open whether recalibration improves prediction in local cohorts.
Objectives To externally validate a recently developed cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk model for Omanis with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Nine primary care centres in Muscat Governorate, Oman. Participants A total of 809 male and female adult Omani patients with T2DM free of CVD at baseline were selected using a systematic random sampling strategy. Outcome measures Data regarding CVD risk factors and outcomes were collected from the patients’ electronic medical records between 29 August 2020 and 2 May 2021. The ability of the model to discriminate CVD risk was assessed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristic curve. Calibration of the model was evaluated using a Hosmer-Lemeshow χ 2 test and the Brier score. Results The incidence of CVD events over the 5-year follow-up period was 4.6%, with myocardial infarction being most frequent (48.6%), followed by peripheral arterial disease (27%) and non-fatal stroke (21.6%). A cut-off risk value of 11.8% demonstrated good sensitivity (67.6%) and specificity (66.5%). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.7 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.78) and the Brier score was 0.01. However, the overall mean predicted risk was greater than the overall observed risk (11.8% vs 4.6%) and the calibration graph showed a relatively significant difference between predicted and observed risk levels in different subgroups. Conclusions Although the model slightly overestimated the CVD risk, it demonstrated good discrimination. Recalibration of the model is required, after which it has the potential to be applied to patients presenting to diabetic care centres elsewhere in Oman.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oraimi et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Type 2 diabetes mellitus free of cardiovascular disease (n=809). Cardiovascular risk model was evaluated on Discrimination of CVD risk (Area under the curve) (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.78). The cardiovascular risk model demonstrated good discrimination with an AUC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.78), but overestimated the 5-year CVD risk (predicted 11.8% vs observed 4.6%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: