Why the study?
Validating cardiovascular disease risk scores considering regional diversities and disparities is critical, but performance of laboratory and non-laboratory scores in Brazilian communities needed validation.
Do the non-laboratory and laboratory-based INTERHEART risk scores accurately predict major cardiovascular events in a Brazilian community-based cohort?
Do the non-laboratory and laboratory-based INTERHEART risk scores accurately predict major cardiovascular events in a Brazilian community-based cohort?
Both non-laboratory and laboratory-based INTERHEART risk scores demonstrated reasonable discriminative accuracy for predicting long-term major cardiovascular events in a Brazilian cohort, highlighting the utility of non-laboratory scores in resource-limited settings.
May support non-laboratory INTERHEART scores where labs unavailable; leaves open need for external validation and calibration.
Background: Risk scores are essential tools for implementing cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Validating risk scores considering regional diversities and disparities is critical for reducing the burden of CVD on global morbidity and mortality. We aimed to validate two cardiovascular risk scores (laboratory and non-laboratory-based) to predict major adverse cardiovascular events in the Brazilian cohort of the PURE study. Methods: We validated two risk scores derived from the INTERHEART study, the non-laboratory INTERHEART risk score (NL-IHRS) and the laboratory fasting cholesterol INTERHEART risk score (FC-IHRS) using data from 4623 (urban areas) and 1415 (rural areas) participants without CVD in the Brazilian cohort of the PURE study enrolled in 2004 and 2005 and followed up to September 2021. The endpoint was major cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. We evaluated the model performance of IHRS through c-statistic and calibration methods. Findings: After a mean follow-up of 8.8 years (range, 0.28-15.1 years), there were 312 cardiovascular events, corresponding to an incidence rate of 0.58% per year (0.56% per year in urban versus 0.64% per year in rural areas). For the NL-IHRS, the c-statistic was 0.69 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.66-0.72) in the overall cohort, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64-0.72) in the urban cohort, and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.78) in the rural cohort. C-statistic values for the recalibrated FC-IHRS were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.74), 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75), and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.64-0.76) in the overall, urban, and rural cohorts, respectively. Interpretation: In this Brazilian community-based prospective cohort, both NL-IHRS and FC-IHRS-based models performed with reasonable discriminative accuracy on the risk estimation of long-term risk of major CVD. A non-laboratory-based CVD risk score may be instrumental in Brazilian communities with limited access to medical resources. Funding: Population Health Research Institute, Novartis Biociências S.A.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oliveira et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: