Why the study?
There is significant heterogeneity in CVD risk among patients with DM, warranting risk scores developed from a contemporary pooled cohort.
Does the newly developed Diabetes Mellitus Risk Score (DMRS) improve 10-year cardiovascular disease risk prediction in adults with diabetes compared to existing general population risk scores?
Does the newly developed Diabetes Mellitus Risk Score (DMRS) improve 10-year cardiovascular disease risk prediction in adults with diabetes compared to existing general population risk scores?
The DMRS provides a diabetes-specific, externally validated tool that outperforms general population risk scores in predicting 10-year cardiovascular events in U.S. adults with diabetes.
Background: There is significant heterogeneity in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Objectives: The purpose of this study was to develop risk scores for total CVD and its components from a contemporary pooled, observational cohort of U.S. adults with DM. Methods: CVD-free adults with DM aged 40 to 79 years were pooled from 4 U.S. population-based cohorts (CARDIA [Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults], Framingham Offspring, Jackson Heart Study, and the MESA (Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) studied since 2000. Baseline DM-specific and non-DM-specific CVD risk factors were evaluated as predictors. We developed 10-year DM Risk Scores (DMRS) for total CVD, atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF) and stroke. Score performance was validated internally and externally. Results: < 0.05) but not for ASCVD, HF, and stroke). From external validation in 2 other cohorts, the DMRS outperformed current risk scores. Conclusions: Our U.S. pooled cohort DMRS for predicting CVD events demonstrated good predictive performance for assessing CVD risk in adults with DM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: