Key result
The ASCVD risk score classified significantly more HIV-infected patients as having elevated cardiovascular disease risk compared to the Framingham Risk Score (14.1% vs 2.6%).
Why the study?
Does the ASCVD risk score accurately identify elevated CVD risk compared to FRS and cIMT in HIV-infected adults in sub-Saharan Africa?
Cross-Sectional (n=208)
Does the ASCVD risk score accurately identify elevated CVD risk compared to FRS and cIMT in HIV-infected adults in sub-Saharan Africa?
Absolute Event Rate: 14.1% vs 2.6%
p-value: p=0.01
The ASCVD risk score identifies a similar proportion of HIV-infected patients at high CVD risk as subclinical atherosclerosis imaging (cIMT), outperforming the Framingham Risk Score in this population.
ASCVD applicability to HIV patients in sub-Saharan Africa remains uncertain; leaves open need for tailored equations pending prospective validation.
OBJECTIVES: HIV-infected patients are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, general population CVD risk prediction equations that identify HIV-infected patients at elevated risk have not been widely assessed in sub-Saharan African (SSA). METHODS: HIV-infected adults from 30-50 years of age with documented viral suppression were enrolled into a cross-sectional study in Gaborone, Botswana. Participants were screened for CVD risk factors. Bilateral carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) was measured and 10-year predicted risk of cardiovascular disease was calculated using the Pooled Cohorts Equation for atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) and the 2008 Framingham Risk Score (FRS) (National Cholesterol Education Program III-NCEP III). ASCVD ≥7.5%, FRS ≥10%, and cIMT≥75th percentile were considered elevated risk for CVD. Agreement in classification of participants as high-risk for CVD by cIMT and FRS or ASCVD risk score was assessed using McNemar`s Test. The optimal cIMT cut off-point that matched ASCVD predicted risk of ≥7.5% was assessed using Youden's J index. RESULTS: Among 208 HIV-infected patients (female: 55%, mean age 38 years), 78 (38%) met criteria for ASCVD calculation versus 130 (62%) who did not meet the criteria. ASCVD classified more participants as having elevated CVD risk than FRS (14.1% versus 2.6%, McNemar's exact test p = 0.01), while also classifying similar proportion of participants as having elevated CVD like cIMT (14.1% versus 19.2%, McNemar's exact test p = 0.34). Youden's J calculated the optimal cut point at the 81st percentile for cIMT to correspond to an ASCVD score ≥7.5% (sensitivity = 72.7% and specificity = 88.1% with area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic [AUC] of 0.82, 95% Mann-Whitney CI: 0.66-0.99). CONCLUSION: While the ASCVD risk score classified more patients at elevated CVD risk than FRS, ASCVD score classified similar proportion of patients as high risk when compared with established subclinical atherosclerosis. However, potential CVD risk category misclassification by established equations such as ASCVD may still exist among HIV-infected patients; hence there is still a need for development of a CVD risk prediction equation tailored to HIV-infected patients in SSA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mosepele et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in HIV infection and Cardiovascular Disease Risk (n=208). ASCVD risk score vs. Framingham Risk Score (FRS) was evaluated on Classification of elevated cardiovascular disease risk (p=0.01). The ASCVD risk score classified significantly more HIV-infected patients as having elevated cardiovascular disease risk compared to the Framingham Risk Score (14.1% vs 2.6%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: