Aims The aim of this study was to derive and validate the SCORE2-Older Persons (SCORE2-OP) risk model to estimate 5- and 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in individuals aged over 70... Show moreAims The aim of this study was to derive and validate the SCORE2-Older Persons (SCORE2-OP) risk model to estimate 5- and 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in individuals aged over 70 years in four geographical risk regions.Methods and results Sex-specific competing risk-adjusted models for estimating CVD risk (CVD mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke) were derived in individuals aged over 65 without pre-existing atherosclerotic CVD from the Cohort of Norway (28 503 individuals, 10 089 CVD events). Models included age, smoking status, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, and total- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Four geographical risk regions were defined based on country-specific CVD mortality rates. Models were recalibrated to each region using region-specific estimated CVD incidence rates and risk factor distributions. For external validation, we analysed data from 6 additional study populations {338 615 individuals, 33 219 CVD validation cohorts, C-indices ranged between 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.65] and 0.67 (0.64-0.69)}. Regional calibration of expected-vs.-observed risks was satisfactory. For given risk factor profiles, there was substantial variation across the four risk regions in the estimated 10-year CVD event risk.Conclusions The competing risk-adjusted SCORE2-OP model was derived, recalibrated, and externally validated to estimate 5- and 10-year CVD risk in older adults (aged 70 years or older) in four geographical risk regions. These models can be used for communicating the risk of CVD and potential benefit from risk factor treatment and may facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients in CVD risk management in older persons. 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
