Why the study?
Does the INTERHEART Modifiable Risk Score accurately predict incident myocardial infarction risk in an international population?
Does the INTERHEART Modifiable Risk Score accurately predict incident myocardial infarction risk in an international population?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The INTERHEART Modifiable Risk Score provides a validated, globally applicable tool for estimating myocardial infarction risk based on modifiable risk factors.
AIMS: Summating risk factor burden is a useful approach in the assessment of cardiovascular risk among apparently healthy individuals. We aimed to derive and validate a new score for myocardial infarction (MI) risk using modifiable risk factors, derived from the INTERHEART case-control study (n = 19 470). METHODS AND RESULTS: Multiple logistic regression was used to create the INTERHEART Modifiable Risk Score (IHMRS). Internal validation was performed using split-sample methods. External validation was performed in an international prospective cohort study. A risk model including apolipoproteins, smoking, second-hand smoke exposure, hypertension, and diabetes was developed. Addition of further modifiable risk factors did not improve score discrimination in an external cohort. Split-sample validation studies showed an area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve c-statistic of 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70, 0.72]. The IHMRS was positively associated with incident MI in a large cohort of people at low risk for cardiovascular disease [12% increase in MI risk (95% CI: 8, 16%) with a 1-point increase in score] and showed appropriate discrimination in this cohort (ROC c-statistic 0.69, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.74). Results were consistent across ethnic groups and geographic regions. A non-laboratory-based score is also supplied. CONCLUSIONS: Using multiple modifiable risk factors from the INTERHEART case-control study, we have developed and validated a simple score for MI risk which is applicable to an international population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McGorrian et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: