Background To help adapt cardiovascular disease risk prediction approaches to low-income and middle-income countries, WHO has convened an effort to develop, evaluate, and illustrate revised risk... Show moreBackground To help adapt cardiovascular disease risk prediction approaches to low-income and middle-income countries, WHO has convened an effort to develop, evaluate, and illustrate revised risk models. Here, we report the derivation, validation, and illustration of the revised WHO cardiovascular disease risk prediction charts that have been adapted to the circumstances of 21 global regions.Methods In this model revision initiative, we derived 10-year risk prediction models for fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular disease (ie, myocardial infarction and stroke) using individual participant data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. Models included information on age, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, history of diabetes, and total cholesterol. For derivation, we included participants aged 40-80 years without a known baseline history of cardiovascular disease, who were followed up until the first myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, or stroke event. We recalibrated models using age-specific and sex-specific incidences and risk factor values available from 21 global regions. For external validation, we analysed individual participant data from studies distinct from those used in model derivation. We illustrated models by analysing data on a further 123 743 individuals from surveys in 79 countries collected with the WHO STEPwise Approach to Surveillance.Findings Our risk model derivation involved 376 177 individuals from 85 cohorts, and 19 333 incident cardiovascular events recorded during 10 years of follow-up. The derived risk prediction models discriminated well in external validation cohorts (19 cohorts, 1 096 061 individuals, 25 950 cardiovascular disease events), with Harrell's C indices ranging from 0.685 (95% CI 0 . 629-0 741) to 0.833 (0 . 783-0- 882). For a given risk factor profile, we found substantial variation across global regions in the estimated 10-year predicted risk. For example, estimated cardiovascular disease risk for a 60-year-old male smoker without diabetes and with systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg and total cholesterol of 5 mmol/L ranged from 11% in Andean Latin America to 30% in central Asia. When applied to data from 79 countries (mostly low-income and middle-income countries), the proportion of individuals aged 40-64 years estimated to be at greater than 20% risk ranged from less than 1% in Uganda to more than 16% in Egypt.Interpretation We have derived, calibrated, and validated new WHO risk prediction models to estimate cardiovascular disease risk in 21 Global Burden of Disease regions. The widespread use of these models could enhance the accuracy, practicability, and sustainability of efforts to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease worldwide. Copyright (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. Show less
Aims There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention... Show moreAims There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after 'recalibration', a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied.Methods and results Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at 'high' 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29 39% of individuals aged >= 40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22-24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44 51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37-39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms.Conclusion Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need. Show less
Background Uncertainties persist about the magnitude of associations of diabetes mellitus and fasting glucose concentration with risk of coronary heart disease and major stroke subtypes. We aimed... Show moreBackground Uncertainties persist about the magnitude of associations of diabetes mellitus and fasting glucose concentration with risk of coronary heart disease and major stroke subtypes. We aimed to quantify these associations for a wide range of circumstances. Methods We undertook a meta-analysis of individual records of diabetes, fasting blood glucose concentration, and other risk factors in people without initial vascular disease from studies in the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. We combined within-study regressions that were adjusted for age, sex, smoking, systolic blood pressure, and body-mass index to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for vascular disease. Findings Analyses included data for 698 782 people (52765 non-fatal or fatal vascular outcomes; 8.49 million person-years at risk) from 102 prospective studies. Adjusted HRs with diabetes were: 2.00 (95% CI 1.83-2.19) for coronary heart disease; 2.27 (1.95-2.65) for ischaemic stroke; 1.56 (1.19-2.05) for haemorrhagic stroke; 1.84 (1.59-2.13) for unclassified stroke; and 1.73 (1.51-1.98) for the aggregate of other vascular deaths. HRs did not change appreciably after further adjustment for lipid, inflammatory, or renal markers. HRs for coronary heart disease were higher in women than in men, at 40-59 years than at 70 years and older, and with fatal than with non-fatal disease. At an adult population-wide prevalence of 10%, diabetes was estimated to account for 11% (10-12%) of vascular deaths. Fasting blood glucose concentration was non-linearly related to vascular risk, with no significant associations between 3.90 mmol/L and 5.59 mmol/L. Compared with fasting blood glucose concentrations of 3.90-5.59 mmol/L, HRs for coronary heart disease were: 1.07 (0.97-1.18) for lower than 3.90 mmol/L; 1.11 (1.04-1.18) for 5.60-6-09 mmol/L; and 1.17 (1.08-1.26) for 6.10-6.99 mmol/L. In people without a history of diabetes, information about fasting blood glucose concentration or impaired fasting glucose status did not significantly improve metrics of vascular disease prediction when added to information about several conventional risk factors. Interpretation Diabetes confers about a two-fold excess risk for a wide range of vascular diseases, independently from other conventional risk factors. In people without diabetes, fasting blood glucose concentration is modestly and nonlinearly associated with risk of vascular disease. Show less
Background. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) may yield insights into longevity. Methods. We performed a meta-analysis of GWAS in Caucasians from four prospective cohort studies: the Age, Gene... Show moreBackground. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) may yield insights into longevity. Methods. We performed a meta-analysis of GWAS in Caucasians from four prospective cohort studies: the Age, Gene/Environment Susceptibility-Reykjavik Study, the Cardiovascular Health Study, the Framingham Heart Study, and the Rotterdam Study participating in the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE) Consortium. Longevity was defined as survival to age 90 years or older (n = 1,836); the comparison group comprised cohort members who died between the ages of 55 and 80 years (a = 1,955). In a second discovery stage, additional genotyping was conducted in the Leiden Longevity Study cohort and the Danish 1905 cohort. Results. There were 273 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associations with p < .0001, but none reached the prespecified significance level of 5 x 10(-8). Of the most significant SNPs, 24 were independent signals, and 16 of these SNPs were successfully genotyped in the second discovery stage, with one association for rs9664222, reaching 6.77 x 10(-7) for the combined meta-analysis of CHARGE and the stage 2 cohorts. The SNP lies in a region near MINPPI (chromosome 10), a well-conserved gene involved in regulation of cellular proliferation. The minor allele was associated with lower odds of survival past age 90 (odds ratio = 0.82). Associations of interest in a homologue of the longevity assurance gene (LASS3) and PAPPA2 were not strengthened in the second stage. Conclusion. Survival studies of larger size or more extreme or specific phenotypes may support or reline these initial findings. Show less
Background Whether triglyceride-mediated pathways are causally relevant to coronary heart disease is uncertain. We studied a genetic variant that regulates triglyceride concentration to help judge... Show moreBackground Whether triglyceride-mediated pathways are causally relevant to coronary heart disease is uncertain. We studied a genetic variant that regulates triglyceride concentration to help judge likelihood of causality. Methods We assessed the -1131T>C (rs662799) promoter polymorphism of the apolipoprotein A5 (APOA5) gene in relation to triglyceride concentration, several other risk factors, and risk of coronary heart disease. We compared disease risk for genetically-raised triglyceride concentration (20 842 patients with coronary heart disease, 35 206 controls) with that recorded for equivalent differences in circulating triglyceride concentration in prospective studies (302 430 participants with no history of cardiovascular disease; 12 785 incident cases of coronary heart disease during 2.79 million person-years at risk). We analysed -1131T>C in 1795 people without a history of cardiovascular disease who had information about lipoprotein concentration and diameter obtained by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Findings The minor allele frequency of -1131T>C was 8% (95% CI 7-9). -1131T>C was not significantly associated with several non-lipid risk factors or LDL cholesterol, and it was modestly associated with lower HDL cholesterol (mean difference per C allele 3.5% [95% CI 2.6-4.6]; 0.053 mmol/L [0.039-0.068]), lower apolipoprotein AI (1.3% [0.3-2.3]; 0.023 g/L [0.005-0.041]), and higher apolipoprotein B (3.2% [1.3-5.1]; 0.027 g/L [0.011-0.043]). By contrast, for every C allele inherited, mean triglyceride concentration was 16.0% (95% CI 12.9-18.7), or 0.25 mmol/L (0.20-0.29), higher (p=4.4x10(-24)). The odds ratio for coronary heart disease was 1.18 (95% CI 1.11-1.26; p=2.6x10(-7)) per C allele, which was concordant with the hazard ratio of 1.10 (95% CI 1.08-1.12) per 16% higher triglyceride concentration recorded in prospective studies. -1131T>C was significantly associated with higher VLDL particle concentration (mean difference per C allele 12.2 nmol/L [95% CI 7.7-16.7]; p=9.3x10(-8)) and smaller HDL particle size (0.14 nm [0.08-0.20]; p=7.0x10(-5)), factors that could mediate the effects of triglyceride. Interpretation These data are consistent with a causal association between triglyceride-mediated pathways and coronary heart disease. Show less
Background Associations of C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration with risk of major diseases can best be assessed by long-term prospective follow-up of large numbers of people. We assessed the... Show moreBackground Associations of C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration with risk of major diseases can best be assessed by long-term prospective follow-up of large numbers of people. We assessed the associations of CRP concentration with risk of vascular and non-vascular outcomes under different circumstances. Methods We meta-analysed individual records of 160 309 people without a history of vascular disease (ie, 1.31 million person-years at risk, 27769 fatal or non-fatal disease outcomes) from 54 long-term prospective studies. Within-study regression analyses were adjusted for within-person variation in risk factor levels. Results Log(c) CRP concentration was linearly associated with several conventional risk factors and inflammatory markers, and nearly log-linearly with the risk of ischaemic vascular disease and non-vascular mortality. Risk ratios (RRs) for coronary heart disease per 1-SD higher log, CRP concentration (three-fold higher) were 1.63 (95% CI 1.51-1.76) when initially adjusted for age and sex only, and 1.37 (1.27-1.48) when adjusted further for conventional risk factors; 1.44 (1.32-1.57) and 1.27 (1.15-1.40) for ischaemic stroke; 1.71 (1.53-1.91) and 1.55 (1.37-1.76) for vascular mortality; and 1.55 (1.41-1.69) and 1.54 (1.40-1.68) for non-vascular mortality RRs were largely unchanged after exclusion of smokers or initial follow-up. After further adjustment for fibrinogen, the corresponding RRs were 1.23 (1.07-1.42) for coronary heart disease; 1.32 (1.18-1.49) for ischaemic stroke; 1.34 (1.18-1.52) for vascular mortality; and 1.34 (1.20-1.50) for non-vascular mortality. Interpretation CRP concentration has continuous associations with the risk of coronary heart disease, ischaemic stroke, vascular mortality, and death from several cancers and lung disease that are each of broadly similar size. The relevance of CRP to such a range of disorders is unclear. Associations with ischaemic vascular disease depend considerably on conventional risk factors and other markers of inflammation. Funding British Heart Foundation, UK Medical Research Council, BUPA Foundation, and GlaxoSmithKline. Show less
