Key result
Recalibrating the Framingham Risk Score with local data increases high-risk CVD classifications by ~83%.
Why the study?
The Framingham Risk Score for cardiovascular diseases requires recalibration using local 10-year mortality and baseline risk factor data for rural populations.
Does recalibrating the Framingham Risk Score using local mortality data change the proportion of individuals categorized as high risk for CVD in a rural Indian cohort?
Cohort (n=3,028)
No
Does recalibrating the Framingham Risk Score using local mortality data change the proportion of individuals categorized as high risk for CVD in a rural Indian cohort?
Recalibrating the Framingham Risk Score for a rural Indian cohort identifies a higher proportion of individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease compared to the original score.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports locally recalibrated FRS in Indian cohorts; hypothesis-generating until linked to incident events.
OBJECTIVE: To recalibrate the Framingham Risk Score-cardiovascular diseases (FRS-CVD) using 10-year mortality data and baseline risk factor data for a rural cohort and assess the effect of recalibration on proportion categorised as high risk. METHODS: Participants of a cardiovascular risk factor survey aged 30-64 years in 2011-12, from 9 villages of a rural block in Vellore, Tamil Nadu, were followed up for mortality till 2021, as part of an established demographic surveillance system. We calculated both lipid-based and Body Mass Index-based FRS-CVD risk scores, as well as recalibrated scores using risk factor data from the baseline survey and CVD mortality observed over 10 years. RESULTS: Based on original lipid-based FRS-CVD scores, 8.48% (109) of 1285 males had a 10-year CVD risk ≥30%, compared to 11.60% (149) with recalibrated scores. Among 1737 females, 1.50% (26) had a 10-year CVD risk of ≥30%, using original FRS-CVD scores, and 3.22% (56) using recalibrated scores. Similarly, for BMI based FRS-CVD scores, overall, 3.63% (110/3028) had a 10-year risk of ≥30%, compared to 6.64% (201) using recalibrated scores. The median 10-year FRS-CVD original score in males was 7.57 (IQR: 3.67-15.83), and 2.53 (IQR: 1.28-5.32) in females, compared to 8.95 (IQR: 4.35-18.52) and 3.79 (IQR: 1.92-7.93) respectively, for the recalibrated FRS-CVD risk scores. CONCLUSION: The recalibrated Framingham models showed a greater proportion of the population at risk of CVDs compared to the original FRS scores, with males having 2-3 times greater CVD risk scores compared to females.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sasikumar et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular disease risk (n=3,028). Recalibrated Framingham Risk Score vs. Original Framingham Risk Score was evaluated on Proportion with 10-year CVD risk ≥30% (BMI-based). Recalibrating the Framingham Risk Score using local 10-year mortality data increased the proportion of adults categorized as high risk from 3.63% to 6.64%.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: