Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does the Framingham Risk Score Predict Risk in Women as Well as It Does in Men?

  • Published:
Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current guidelines for classifying women into high, intermediate and low risk based on the Framingham Risk Score and National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines are biased against women, deprive many women at risk of coronary heart disease of potentially effective lipid-lowering drug therapy, and likely contribute to a very high prevalence of vascular disease, cognitive disorders, disability, and reduced active life expectancy for women. Prevalence of atherosclerosis beginning early in life, use of noninvasive imaging of atherosclerosis, better measurement of lipoprotein levels, awareness of importance of diseases that increase risk of coronary heart disease among women, and earlier and more frequent use of effective therapies to prevent cardiovascular disease are necessary to greatly improve women’s cardiovascular health.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. • Kuller LH, Matthews KA, Edmundowicz D, Chang Y:. Incident coronary artery calcium among postmenopausal women. Atherosclerosis 2008, 200:278–285. The Healthy Women Study has shown that baseline premenopausal risk factors, including ApoB, triglycerides, body mass index, smoking, and lower SBP, are primary determinants of prevalence of coronary calcium to age 68 years and that extent of coronary calcium is a predictor of heart attack. About one third of the women in this study still have no measurable coronary calcium at age 68 years.

  2. • Daviglus ML, Liu K, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al.: Low cardiovascular risk profile in younger age and quantity of coronary artery calcium in older age: preliminary results from the Chicago Healthy Aging Study (CHAS) [abstract 1185]. Circulation 2009, 120:S462. Low levels of all major cardiovascular risk factors at younger ages are associated with low CVD morbidity and mortality, health care costs, and quality of life to older ages. Participants classified as low risk who were 25 to 42 years of age followed to mean age of 71 years had very low likelihood of coronary calcium (hazard ratio = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15–0.90).

  3. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams R, Carnethon M, et al.: Heart disease and stroke statistics–2009 update. A report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation 2009, 119:e21–e181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Arsenault BJ, Rana JS, Stroes ES, et al.: Beyond low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Respective contributions of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, triglycerides, and the total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio to coronary heart disease risk in apparently healthy men and women. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009, 55:35–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. • Cooney MT, Dudina AL, Graham IM: Value and limitations of existing scores for the assessment of cardiovascular risk. A review for clinicians. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009, 54:1209–1227. Risk estimate scores have been developed to assist clinicians in planning management approaches. The effect of adding new risk factors to traditional risk factors for prediction (ie, c-statistic) is small but may improve the Net Reclassification Index.

  6. Beswick A, Brindle P: Risk scoring in the assessment of cardiovascular risk. Curr Opin Lipidol 2006, 17:375–386.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cui J: Overview of risk prediction models in cardiovascular research. Ann Epidemiol 2009, 19:711–717.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. D’Agostino RB Sr, Grundy S, Sullivan LM, et al.: Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation. JAMA 2001, 286:180–187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilson PW, D’Agostino RB, Levy D, et al.: Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 1998, 97:1837–1847.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ford ES, Giles WH, Mokdad AH: The distribution of 10-year risk for coronary heart disease among U.S. adults. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004, 43:179–1796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Welty FK: Preventing clinically evident coronary heart disease in the postmenopausal woman. Menopause 2004, 11:484–494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group: Statin cost-effectiveness in the United States for people at different vascular risk levels. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2009, 2:65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. • 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, 150:243–254. The cost-effectiveness of lipid-lowering drug therapy depends on price of statin therapy. With the less-expensive statins, more liberal prescribing approaches could be used at a cost of less than $0.10 per pill. In theory, treating practically all persons might be the lowest cost.

  14. Mills EJ, Rachlis B, Wu P, et al.: Primary prevention of cardiovascular mortality and events with statin treatments: a network meta-analysis involving more than 65,000 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008, 52:1769–1781.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Marchie A, et al.: Effects of a dietary portfolio of cholesterol-lowering foods vs lovastatin on serum lipids and C-reactive protein. JAMA 2003, 290:502–510.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, D’Agostino RB Jr, Vasan RS: Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 2008, 27:157–172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dhangana R, Murphy TP, Zafar AM, et al.: Optimal use of Framingham risk scores to identify individuals for intensive medical risk factor modification [Abstract 1004]: Circulation 2009, 120:S423.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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, 117:743–753.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. •• Marma AK, Berry JD, Ning H, et al.: Distribution of 10-year risk and lifetime predicted risks for cardiovascular disease in US adults: findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003 to 2006. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2010, 3:8–14. Many women are classified as being at low short-term 10-year risk of CHD, but in reality they are at a high lifetime risk. Of an estimated 78,370,000 adult women in the United States, only 14% are at low lifetime risk and have all optimal risk factors whereas 61.6% of women are at low short-term and high lifetime risk. Women with all optimal risk factors have an 8% lifetime risk of CHD from age 50 years, whereas women with one or more elevated risk factors and high lifetime risk have a 39% lifetime risk of CHD.

  20. Lloyd-Jones DM, Leip EP, Larson MG, et al.: Prediction of lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease by risk factor burden at 50 years of age. Circulation 2006, 113:791–798.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, Larson MG, et al.: Predicting the 30-year risk of cardiovascular disease: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2009, 119:3078–3084.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mosca L, Banka CL, Benjamin EJ, et al.: Evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in women: 2007 update. Circulation 2007, 115:1481–1501. (Published erratum appears in Circulation 2007, 115:e407.)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van Halm VP, Nurmohamed MT, Twisk JW, et al.: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are associated with a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a case control study. Arthritis Res Ther 2006, 8:R151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Manzi S, Meilahn EN, Rairie JE, et al.: Age-specific incidence rates of myocardial infarction and angina in women with systemic lupus erythematosus: comparison with Framingham study. Am J Epidemiol 1997, 145:408–415.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. • Stamatelopoulos KS, Kitas GD, Papamichael CM, et al.: Atherosclerosis in rheumatoid arthritis versus diabetes. A comparative study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2009, 29:1702–1708. The prevalence of abnormal measures of subclinical atherosclerosis is similar among patients with RA and diabetes. Some studies have reported an increased risk of CHD among patients with RA, suggesting that RA might be a high risk equivalent similar to diabetes. It is unknown why women with RA might have increased risk of CHD.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jones DJ, Bromberger JT, Sutton-Tyrrell K, Matthews KA: Lifetime history of depression and carotid atherosclerosis in middle-aged women. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003, 60:153–160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al.: Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008, 359:2195–2207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ridker PM, Buring JE, Rifai N, Cook NR: Development and validation of improved algorithms for the assessment of global cardiovascular risk in women. JAMA 2007, 297:611–619. (Published erratum appears in JAMA 2007, 297:1433.)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. •• The Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration: C-reactive protein concentration and risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality: an individual participant meta-analysis. Lancet 2010, 375:132–140. CRP level determines a continuous linear increased risk of CHD across many studies. There is also increased risk of cancer, stroke, and vascular and nonvascular mortality. Similar observations are noted for other inflammatory markers. These inflammatory markers are good predictors of disease but not necessarily in the causal pathway. No study has independently shown that lower CRP or inflammatory markers reduce risk of CHD. Weight loss will substantially reduce CRP levels.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Barter PJ, Ballantyne CM, Carmena R, et al.: ApoB versus cholesterol in estimating cardiovascular risk and in guiding therapy: report of the thirty-person/ten-country panel. J Intern Med 2006, 259:247–258.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. •• Sniderman A, Williams K, Cobbaert C: ApoB versus non-HDL-C: what to do when they disagree. Curr Atheroscler Rep 2009, 11:358–363. ApoB levels are highly correlated with non–HDL-C. However, there are many situations where ApoB and non–HDL-C disagree and use of non–HDL-C or LDL-C resulted in under-treatment of a patient or misclassification of risk. For many women with dyslipidemia due to obesity, diabetes, or insulin resistance, misclassification based on non–HDL-C or LDL-C may be greater. ApoB provides a precise estimate of number of atherogenic particles.

  32. • Navab M, Anantharamaiah GM, Reddy ST, Van Lenten BJ, Fogelman AM: HDL as a biomarker, potential therapeutic target, and therapy. Diabetes 2009, 58:2711–2717. Higher levels of HDL-C are a protective risk factor in the FRS. Numerous epidemiologic studies have documented the strong inverse relationship between levels of HDL-C and risk of heart attack, but clinical trials have been equivocal. This article describes the various functions of HDL and the idea that simple measures of HDL-C may be inappropriate.

  33. Raggi P, Gongora MC, Gopal A, et al.: Coronary artery calcium to predict all-cause mortality in elderly men and women. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008, 52:17–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bonaca MP, Steg PG, Feldman LJ, et al.: Antithrombotics in acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009, 54:969–984.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ambrose JA: In search of the “vulnerable plaque”. Can it be localized and will focal regional therapy ever be an option for cardiac prevention? J Am Coll Cardiol 2008, 51:1539–1542.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pundziute G, Schuijf JD, Jukema JW, et al.: Evaluation of plaque characteristics in acute coronary syndromes: non-invasive assessment with multi-slice computed tomography and invasive evaluation with intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency data analysis. Eur Heart J 2008, 29:2373–2381.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Detrano R, Guerci AD, Carr JJ, et al.: Coronary calcium as a predictor of coronary events in four racial or ethnic groups. N Engl J Med 2008, 358:1336–1345.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lakoski SG, Greenland P, Wong ND, et al.: Coronary artery calcium scores and risk for cardiovascular events in women classified as “low risk” based on Framingham risk score. Arch Intern Med 2007, 167:2437–2442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nicholls SJ: Relationship between LDL, HDL, blood pressure then atheroma progression in the coronaries. Curr Opin Lipidol 2009, 20:491–496.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Michos ED, Nasir K, Braunstein JB, et al.: Framingham risk equation underestimates subclinical atherosclerosis risk in asymptomatic women. Atherosclerosis 2006, 184:201–206.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kuller L, Borhani N, Furberg C, et al.: Prevention of subclinical atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease and association with risk factors in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 1994, 139:1164–1179.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kuller LH, Arnold AM, Psaty BM, et al.: 10-year follow-up of subclinical cardiovascular disease and risk of coronary heart disease in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Arch Intern Med 2006, 166:71–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Shaw LJ, Raggi P, Schisterman E, et al.: Prognostic value of cardiac risk factors and coronary artery calcium screening for all-cause mortality. Radiology 2003, 228:826–833.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Newman AB, Naydeck BL, Ives DG, et al.: Coronary artery calcium, carotid artery wall thickness, and cardiovascular disease outcomes in adults 70 to 99 years old. Am J Cardiol 2008, 101:186–192.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ankle Brachial Index Collaboration: Ankle brachial index combined with Framingham risk score to predict cardiovascular events and mortality. A meta-analysis. JAMA 2008, 300:197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. • Kuller LH, Margolis KL, Gaussoin SA, et al.: Relationship of hypertension, blood pressure, and blood pressure control with white matter abnormalities in the Women’s Health Initiative memory Study (WHIMS)-MRI trial. J Clin Trials Hypertens 2010 (in press); doi:10.111/j.1751-7176.2009.00234.x. White matter lesions in the brain can be evaluated by MRI and are related to BP levels. In the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study, BP levels at baseline at entry to WHI were strongly related to volume of white matter lesions. Participants treated for hypertension who had BP levels ≥ 140 mm Hg had greater amount of abnormal white matter volumes. White matter lesions are risk factors for stroke, dementia, extremity disability, and mortality.

  47. • Kodama S, Saito K, Tanaka S, et al.: Cardiorespiratory fitness as a quantitative predictor of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in healthy men and women: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2009, 301:2024–2035. Cardiorespiratory fitness measurements by maximal exercise testing is not a component of the FRS. Should it be? This article reviews the association between both total mortality and CVD with cardiorespiratory fitness. It suggests that new risk prediction models should consider cardiorespiratory fitness as a risk factor.

  48. Jackson AS, Sui X, Hébert JR, et al. Role of lifestyle and aging on the longitudinal changes in cardiorespiratory fitness. Arch Intern Med 2009, 169:1781–1787.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. • Genest J, McPherson R, Frohlich J, et al.: 2009 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult—2009 recommendations. Can J Cardiol 2009, 25:567–579. The new Canadian guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia include measurement of ApoB, family history of premature CHD, obesity, and inflammatory markers. For high-risk individuals, a reduction in LDL-C less than 2 mmol/L or ApoB less than 80 mg/dL is recommended, and the recommendations are similar for moderate risk. Unfortunately, risk still focuses on short term, but some discussion of long-term risk should be considered, especially for women.

  50. Ridker PM, Paynter NP, Rifai N, et al.: C-reactive protein and parental history improve global cardiovascular risk prediction. The Reynolds Risk Score for men. Circulation 2008, 118: 2243–2251.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 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, 110:227–239. (Published erratum appears in Circulation 2004, 110:763.)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. •• The Indian Polycap Study (TIPS), Yusuf S, Pais P, et al.: Effects of a polypill (Polycap) on risk factors in middle-aged individuals without cardiovascular disease (TIPS): a phase II, double-blind, randomized trial. Lancet 2009, 373:1341–1351. The polypill approach for prevention of CVD is based on new observations that risk prediction for CHD in primary prevention is imprecise. A large percentage of cardiovascular events occur among people with average risk. The polypill intervenes on multiple risk factors at the same time. The Indian Polycap Study was successful in lowering BP by 17.4 mm Hg, LDL-C by 27 mg/dL, as well as heart rate and markers of thrombosis.

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Lewis H. Kuller

Authors
  1. Lewis H. Kuller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lewis H. Kuller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kuller, L.H. Does the Framingham Risk Score Predict Risk in Women as Well as It Does in Men?. Curr Cardio Risk Rep 4, 229–236 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-010-0093-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-010-0093-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation