Why the study?
To assess 10-year ASCVD risk scores among adults in eastern China using the China-PAR equation formulated primarily for the Chinese population.
In eastern China, men have a significantly higher 10-year ASCVD risk than women, and additional factors like WHR, WHtR, non-HDL-C, and TC/HDL-C are independently associated with risk beyond the China-PAR equation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports ASCVD risk stratification with China-PAR in eastern China; leaves open need for outcome-linked validation.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the 10-year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk score among adults in eastern China using the China-PAR equation which formulated primarily for the Chinese population. METHODS: Data from 72,129 individuals from 35-74 years old who received routine physical examinations in eastern China were analyzed in this study. The 10-year risk scores were calculated using the China-PAR equation. The chi-square test and logistic regression were then performed to evaluate the association between the selected risk factors and overall CVD risk. RESULTS: The mean 10-year ASCVD risk scores were 3.82% ± 3.76% in men and 1.30% ± 1.65% in women based on the China-PAR equation. Overall, 20% of men and 3.5% of women were intermediate-risk, and 7.3% of men and 0.3% of women were high-risk. Waist to hip ratio (WHR) [OR = 1.16 (CI 95% = 1.06-1.26)], waist to height ratio (WHtR) [OR = 1.16 (CI 95% = 1.05-1.28)], non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) [OR = 1.23 (CI 95% = 1.09-1.39)], and total cholesterol (TC)/HDL-C [OR = 1.68 (CI 95% = 1.46-1.94)] were more strongly associated with CVD risk than body-mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and TC alone. CONCLUSION: Male-specific prevention and treatment strategies for ASCVD are needed in eastern China. In addition, WHR, WHtR, non-HDL-C, and TC/HDL-C which not included in the the China-PAR equation were also independently associated with 10-year ASCVD risk score categories.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: