Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract QRISK algorithms use data from millions of people to help clinicians identify individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Here, we derive and externally validate a new algorithm, which we have named QR4, that incorporates novel risk factors to estimate 10-year CVD risk separately for men and women. Health data from 9.98 million and 6.79 million adults from the United Kingdom were used for derivation and validation of the algorithm, respectively. Cause-specific Cox models were used to develop models to predict CVD risk, and the performance of QR4 was compared with version 3 of QRISK, Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk scores. We identified seven novel risk factors in models for both men and women (brain cancer, lung cancer, Down syndrome, blood cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, oral cancer and learning disability) and two additional novel risk factors in women (pre-eclampsia and postnatal depression). On external validation, QR4 had a higher C statistic than QRISK3 in both women (0.835 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.833–0.837) and 0.831 (95% CI, 0.829–0.832) for QR4 and QRISK3, respectively) and men (0.814 (95% CI, 0.812–0.816) and 0.812 (95% CI, 0.810–0.814) for QR4 and QRISK3, respectively). QR4 was also more accurate than the ASCVD and SCORE2 risk scores in both men and women. The QR4 risk score identifies new risk groups and provides superior CVD risk prediction in the United Kingdom compared with other international scoring systems for CVD risk.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Julia Hippisley‐Cox
University of Nottingham
Carol Coupland
Preventive Cardiology
Mona Bafadhel
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Nature Medicine
University of Oxford
University of Edinburgh
King's College London
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Hippisley‐Cox et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/68e6e76cb6db643587663419 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02905-y