QRISK2 and Framingham risk scores do not perform consistently well across different ethnic groups, significantly underestimating CVD risk in South Asian and European women.
Clinicians should interpret QRISK2/Framingham cautiously across ethnic groups in women; leaves open need for ethnicity-specific recalibration and validation.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate QRISK2 and Framingham cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk scores in a tri-ethnic U.K. population. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: West London. PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected from primary care lists. Follow-up data were available for 87% of traced participants, comprising 1866 white Europeans, 1377 South Asians, and 578 African Caribbeans, aged 40-69 years at baseline (1998-1991). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: First CVD events: myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, angina, transient ischaemic attack or stroke reported by participant, primary care or hospital records or death certificate. RESULTS: During follow-up, 387 CVD events occurred in men (14%) and 78 in women (8%). Both scores underestimated risk in European and South Asian women (ratio of predicted to observed risk: European women: QRISK2: 0.73, Framingham: 0.73; South Asian women: QRISK2: 0.52, Framingham: 0.43). In African Caribbeans, Framingham over-predicted in men and women and QRISK2 over-predicted in women. Framingham classified 28% of participants as high risk, predicting 54% of all such events. QRISK2 classified 19% as high risk, predicting 42% of all such events. Both scores performed poorly in identifying high risk African Caribbeans; QRISK2 and Framingham identified as high risk only 10% and 24% of those who experienced events. CONCLUSIONS: Neither score performed consistently well in all ethnic groups. Further validation of QRISK2 in other multi-ethnic datasets, and better methods for identifying high risk African Caribbeans and South Asian women, are required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tillin et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: