PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Peter Brindle

Publications and source records attributed to Peter Brindle.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

Adding social deprivation and family history to cardiovascular risk assessment: the ASSIGN score from the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort (SHHEC).

OBJECTIVE: To improve equity in cardiovascular disease prevention by developing a cardiovascular risk score including social deprivation and family history. DESIGN: The ASSIGN score was derived from cardiovascular outcomes in the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort (SHHEC). It was tested against the Framingham cardiovascular risk score in the same database. SETTING: Random-sample, risk-factor population surveys across Scotland 1984-87 and North Glasgow 1989, 1992 and 1995. PARTICIPANTS: 6540 men and 6757 women aged 30-74, initially free of cardiovascular disease, ranked for social deprivation by residence postcode using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) and followed for cardiovascular mortality and morbidity through 2005. RESULTS: Classic risk factors, including cigarette dosage, plus deprivation and family history but not obesity, were significant factors in constructing ASSIGN scores for each sex. ASSIGN scores, lower on average, correlated closely with Framingham values for 10-year cardiovascular risk. Discrimination of risk in the SHHEC population was significantly, but marginally, improved overall by ASSIGN. However, the social gradient in cardiovascular event rates was inadequately reflected by the Framingham score, leaving a large social disparity in future victims not identified as high risk. ASSIGN classified more people with social deprivation and positive family history as high risk, anticipated more of their events, and abolished this gradient. CONCLUSION: Conventional cardiovascular scores fail to target social gradients in disease. By including unattributed risk from deprivation, ASSIGN shifts preventive treatment towards the socially deprived. Family history is valuable not least as an approach to ethnic susceptibility. ASSIGN merits further evaluation for clinical use.

Adult↗

Risk scoring in the assessment of cardiovascular risk.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiovascular risk scoring is incorporated in guidelines and recommended for targeting preventive treatment. Evidence is required on the most appropriate method, its accuracy in a given population, and its effectiveness in favourably influencing clinical behaviour and health outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent risk scores address inaccuracies that arise when methods are transferred between populations, and specific methods and recalibrations are described for use in low-risk populations. Ethnic and social differences in risk are also recognized in the context of cardiovascular risk scoring. More sensitive measures of known risk factors and numerous emerging risk factors are reported and new statistical methods and sources of data suggested. Little emphasis has been placed on evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of cardiovascular risk scores. Education in cardiovascular risk assessment may help improve uptake of methods by healthcare professionals. SUMMARY: Numerous risk scoring methods are available to the healthcare professional but use is patchy. Accuracy varies between populations and methods have been developed to compensate for some of this variability. If risk scoring methods are to be widely used in general practice, evidence is required on both the accuracy of methods in appropriate populations and their effectiveness in improving health outcomes.

Age Factors↗

Coronary risk scores.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Anticholesteremic Agents↗

Predictive accuracy of the Framingham coronary risk score in British men: prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the predictive accuracy of the Framingham risk score for coronary heart disease in a representative British population. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: 24 towns in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 6643 British men aged 40-59 years and free from cardiovascular disease at entry into the British regional heart study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of observed 10 year coronary heart disease mortality and event rates with predicted rates for each individual, using the relevant Framingham risk equation. RESULTS: Of 6643 men, 2.8% (95% confidence interval 2.4% to 3.2%) died from coronary heart disease compared with 4.1% predicted (relative overestimation 47%, P < 0.0001). A fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease event occurred in 10.2% (9.5% to 10.9%) of the men compared with 16.0% predicted (relative overestimation 57%, P < 0.0001). These relative degrees of overestimation were similar at all levels of coronary heart disease risk, so that overestimation of absolute risk was greatest for those at highest risk. A simple adjustment provided an improved level of accuracy. In a "high risk score" approach, most cases occur in the low risk group. In this case, 84% of the deaths from coronary heart disease and non-fatal events occurred in the 93% of men classified at low risk (< 30% in 10 years) by the Framingham score. CONCLUSION: Guidelines for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease advocate offering preventive measures to individuals at high risk. Currently recommended risk scoring methods derived from the Framingham study significantly overestimate the absolute coronary risk assigned to individuals in the United Kingdom.

Adult↗