A laboratory-based Framingham risk calculation system identified 20% of diabetic patients as having an annual CHD risk ≥3%, of which the Sheffield tables correctly identified only 11%.
Cross-Sectional (n=1,060)
No
Does a laboratory-based Framingham equation calculation improve the identification of high CHD risk compared to Sheffield risk tables in patients with diabetes mellitus?
A laboratory-based Framingham risk calculation system offers significantly greater sensitivity than the Sheffield tables for identifying high coronary heart disease risk in patients with diabetes.
AIMS: To develop an estimation of risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) based on the Framingham equation for use in a diabetes clinic, given concerns about the accuracy of the Sheffield risk tables in this setting. METHODS: A computer program using the Framingham equation based on patients' age, sex, systolic blood pressure, smoking history, presence of diabetes and left ventricular hypertrophy was applied to requests for lipid screening of patients attending the diabetes clinics of Birmingham Heartlands Hospital. The calculated risks for the population were compared with those estimated from the Sheffield tables. RESULTS: Of 1060 patients with diabetes mellitus, 215 (20%) had an annual CHD risk > or =3%, which is considered to be the threshold at which lipid-lowering drugs are cost-effective. Only 24 of these 215 patients (11%) were correctly identified by the Sheffield tables, which we conclude have an unacceptably low sensitivity in diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS: A laboratory-based CHD risk calculation system is a practical alternative to the Sheffield system and may have a greater sensitivity in the diabetic clinic.
Bayly et al. (1999) conducted a cross-sectional in Diabetes mellitus (n=1,060). Framingham equation-based computer program vs. Sheffield risk tables was evaluated on Identification of annual CHD risk ≥3%. A laboratory-based Framingham risk calculation system identified 20% of diabetic patients as having an annual CHD risk ≥3%, of which the Sheffield tables correctly identified only 11%.