Coronary Risk Assessment by Point-Based vs. Equation-Based Framingham Models: Significant Implications for Clinical Care
US cholesterol guidelines use original and simplified versions of the Framingham model to estimate future coronary risk and thereby classify patients into risk groups with different treatment strategies. We sought to compare risk estimates and risk group classification generated by the original, complex Framingham model and the simplified, point-based version.
We assessed 2,543 subjects age 20–79 from the 2001–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) for whom Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III) guidelines recommend formal risk stratification. For each subject, we calculated the 10-year risk of major coronary events using the original and point-based Framingham models, and then compared differences in these risk estimates and whether these differences would place subjects into different ATP-III risk groups (<10% risk, 10–20% risk, or >20% risk). Using standard procedures, all analyses were adjusted for survey weights, clustering, and stratification to make our results nationally representative.
Among 39 million eligible adults, the original Framingham model categorized 71% of subjects as having “moderate” risk (<10% risk of a major coronary event in the next 10 years), 22% as having “moderately high” (10–20%) risk, and 7% as having “high” (>20%) risk. Estimates of coronary risk by the original and point-based models often differed substantially. The point-based system classified 15% of adults (5.7 million) into different risk groups than the original model, with 10% (3.9 million) misclassified into higher risk groups and 5% (1.8 million) into lower risk groups, for a net impact of classifying 2.1 million adults into higher risk groups. These risk group misclassifications would impact guideline-recommended drug treatment strategies for 25–46% of affected subjects. Patterns of misclassifications varied significantly by gender, age, and underlying CHD risk.
Compared to the original Framingham model, the point-based version misclassifies millions of Americans into risk groups for which guidelines recommend different treatment strategies.
- Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Jama. 2001;285:2486-97.
- Sullivan LM, Massaro JM, D'Agostino RB Sr. Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: The Framingham Study risk score functions. Stat Med. 2004;23:1631–60. CrossRef
- Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110:227–39. CrossRef
- Sheridan S, Pignone M, Mulrow C. Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:1039–52. CrossRef
- Epocrates Rx STAT Cholesterol application on Palm Pilot portable digital assistant platform. Available at: www.epocrates.com. Accessed June 17, 2010.
- Persell SD, Lloyd-Jones DM, Baker DW. National Cholesterol Education Program risk assessment and potential for risk misclassification. Prev Med. 2006;43:368–71. CrossRef
- Ajani UA, Ford ES. Two approaches of coronary risk assessment–do they work? Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:765–7. CrossRef
- MayoClinic.com Heart Disease Risk Calculator. Available at: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/heart-disease-risk/HB00047. Accessed June 15, 2010
- Fedder DO, Koro CE, L'Italien GJ. New National Cholesterol Education Program III guidelines for primary prevention lipid-lowering drug therapy: projected impact on the size, sex, and age distribution of the treatment-eligible population. Circulation. 2002;105:152–6. CrossRef
- Persell SD, Lloyd-Jones DM, Baker DW. Implications of changing national cholesterol education program goals for the treatment and control of hypercholesterolemia. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:171–6.
- National Center for Health Statistics. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Analytic and Reporting Guidelines (update version September 2006). Hyattsville, MD. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/analytical_guidelines.htm. Accessed June 15, 2010.
- Royston P. Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal. 2004;4:227–241.
- van Buuren S, Boshuizen HC, Knook DL. Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine. 1999;18:681–694. CrossRef
- National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Framingham Heart Study: Hard Coronary Heart Disease: 10-year risk. Available at: http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/risk/hrdcoronary.html. Accessed June 15, 2010
- Wilson PW, D'Agostino RB, Levy D, Belanger AM, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97:1837–47.
- Wilson PWF, Pencina MJ, Jacques P, Selhub J, D'Agostino R Sr, O'Donnell CJ. C-reactive protein and reclassification of cardiovascular risk in the Framingham Heart Study. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008;1:92–97. CrossRef
- Janes H, Pepe MS, Gu W. Assessing the value of risk predictions by using risk stratification tables. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:751–60.
- Cook NR, Ridker PM. Advances in measuring the effect of individual predictors of cardiovascular risk: the role of reclassification measures. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:795–802.
- Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Unintended effects of statins in men and women in England and Wales: population based cohort study using the QResearch database. BMJ;340:c2197.
- Law MR, Wald NJ, Thompson SG. By how much and how quickly does reduction in serum cholesterol concentration lower risk of ischaemic heart disease? BMJ. 1994;308:367–72.
- Law MR, Wald NJ, Rudnicka AR. Quantifying effect of statins on low density lipoprotein cholesterol, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003;326:1423. CrossRef
- Hayward RA, Hofer TP, Vijan S. Narrative review: lack of evidence for recommended low-density lipoprotein treatment targets: a solvable problem. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:520–30.
- Tinetti ME, Bogardus ST Jr, Agostini JV. Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2870–4. CrossRef
- Lenzer J. US consumer body calls for review of cholesterol guidelines. BMJ. 2004;329:759. CrossRef
- Pignone M, Earnshaw S, Tice JA, Pletcher MJ. Aspirin, statins, or both drugs for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease events in men: a cost-utility analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:326–36.
- Ward S, Lloyd Jones M, Pandor A, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1–160. iii-iv.
- Reidenberg MM. Benefit/risk ratio of statins in primary prevention. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83:498–500. CrossRef
- Golomb BA, McGraw JJ, Evans MA, Dimsdale JE. Physician response to patient reports of adverse drug effects: implications for patient-targeted adverse effect surveillance. Drug Saf. 2007;30:669–75. CrossRef
- Criqui MH, Golomb BA. Low and lowered cholesterol and total mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1009–10. CrossRef
- Pletcher MJ, Lazar L, Bibbins-Domingo K, et al. Comparing impact and cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for lipid-lowering. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:243–54.
- National Cholesterol Education Program. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III): Final Report. National Institutes of Health Publication No. 02-5215; 2002.
- Fornasini M, Brotons C, Sellares J, et al. Consequences of using different methods to assess cardiovascular risk in primary care. Fam Pract. 2006;23:28–33. CrossRef
- D'Agostino RB Sr, Grundy S, Sullivan LM, Wilson P. Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation. JAMA. 2001;286:180–7. CrossRef
- Simmons RK, Sharp S, Boekholdt SM, et al. Evaluation of the Framingham risk score in the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk cohort: does adding glycated hemoglobin improve the prediction of coronary heart disease events? Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1209–16. CrossRef
- D'Agostino RB Sr, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2008;117:743–53. CrossRef
- Brindle P, Emberson J, Lampe F, et al. Predictive accuracy of the Framingham coronary risk score in British men: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2003;327:1267. CrossRef
- Manuel DG, Kwong K, Tanuseputro P, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of different guidelines on statin treatment for preventing deaths from coronary heart disease: modelling study. BMJ. 2006;332:1419. CrossRef
- Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Ellner A. Making sense of risk information on the web. BMJ. 2003;327:695–6. CrossRef
- Coronary Risk Assessment by Point-Based vs. Equation-Based Framingham Models: Significant Implications for Clinical Care
- Open Access
- Available under Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Volume 25, Issue 11 , pp 1145-1151
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- risk assessment
- heart diseases
- practice guidelines as topic
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
- 2. Medical Student Training in Aging Research Program, San Francisco, CA, USA
- 3. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD, USA
- 4. Division of Geriatrics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
- 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
- 6. San Francisco VA Medical Center, 4150 Clement St, Box 181G, San Francisco, CA, 94121, USA