Key result
SCORE2-OP showed moderate agreement with SCORE2 calibrated for Colombia (weighted kappa 0.43; 95% CI 0.40-0.46) and fair agreement with ASCVD-2013 and Framingham algorithms in adults aged ≥ 70 years.
Why the study?
Most cardiovascular risk prediction models were developed in populations under 70 years, and applying the SCORE2-OP model outside Europe may under- or overestimate true risk.
What is the concordance between widely used cardiovascular risk prediction models (ASCVD-2013, Framingham, SCORE2) and SCORE2-OP in adults aged ⩾ 70 years?
Cross-Sectional (n=586)
What is the concordance between widely used cardiovascular risk prediction models (ASCVD-2013, Framingham, SCORE2) and SCORE2-OP in adults aged ⩾ 70 years?
Effect estimate: weighted kappa 0.43 (95% CI 0.40-0.46)
There is variable agreement between widely used cardiovascular risk prediction models and SCORE2-OP in older adults, highlighting the need for region-specific validation.
Limited agreement among CV risk scores in adults ≥70 cautions against interchangeable use; leaves open prospective validation of SCORE2-OP.
Background: Despite several prediction models to estimate cardiovascular risk (CVR) being available, most have been developed and validated in populations under 70 years of age. To improve this estimation in older adults aged 70 years or older, the SCORE2-OP model was developed; however, its application outside Europe may under- or overestimate true CVR. Objective: To assess the concordance between the CVR measured by 4 widely used CVR tools (Framingham, ASCVD-2013, SCORE2) and the SCORE2-OP in older adults aged ⩾ 70 years. Methods: Secondary analysis of adults aged ⩾ 70 years from the SABE Colombia study, which was conducted between April and September 2015. The concordance between the 4 different CVR prediction models and SCORE2-OP was assessed via Cohen's quadratically weighted kappa coefficient and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient. Results: Among the 23 694 participants in the SABE Colombia study, 23 108 were excluded due to insufficient data to estimate the CVR for any of the tools evaluated. 586 individuals met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The concordance between the ASCVD-2013 (weighted kappa 0.24; 95% CI 0.22-0.26) and Framingham algorithms (0.22; 95% CI 0.20-0.24) calibrated to the Colombian population and SCORE2-OP were both classified as fair. In contrast, agreement between SCORE2 calibrated for Colombia and SCORE2-OP reached a moderate level (0.43; 95% CI 0.40-0.46). Higher values were observed compared with the SCORE2-OP model developed for intermediate-risk regions. Conclusions: Our results suggest that, among adults aged ⩾ 70 years, there is variable agreement between widely used CVR prediction models and SCORE2-OP, with the latter overestimating CVR compared to nationally validated CVR scores. This highlights the need for region-specific validation to ensure accurate estimation of CVR in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bueno et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular risk (n=586). SCORE2-OP vs. ASCVD-2013, Framingham, and SCORE2 was evaluated on Concordance between SCORE2 calibrated for Colombia and SCORE2-OP (weighted kappa 0.43, 95% CI 0.40-0.46). SCORE2-OP showed moderate agreement with SCORE2 calibrated for Colombia (weighted kappa 0.43; 95% CI 0.40-0.46) and fair agreement with ASCVD-2013 and Framingham algorithms in adults aged ≥ 70 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: