TY - JOUR
T1 - Agreement between the laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based WHO cardiovascular risk charts
T2 - a cross-sectional analysis of a national health survey in Peru
AU - Guzman-Vilca, Wilmer Cristobal
AU - Quispe-Villegas, Gustavo A.
AU - Váscones Román, Fritz Fidel
AU - Bernabe-Ortiz, Antonio
AU - Carrillo-Larco, Rodrigo M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2022/11/7
Y1 - 2022/11/7
N2 - Objective To determine the agreement between the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk predictions computed with the WHO non-laboratory-based model and laboratory-based model in a nationally representative sample of Peruvian adults. Design Cross-sectional analysis of a national health survey. Methods Absolute CVD risk was computed with the 2019 WHO laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based models. The risk predictions from both models were compared with Bland-Altman plots, Lin's concordance coefficient correlation (LCCC), and kappa statistics, stratified by sex, age, body mass index categories, smoking and diabetes status. Results 663 people aged 30-59 years were included in the analysis. Overall, there were no substantial differences between the mean CVD risk computed with the laboratory-based model 2.0% (95% CI 1.8% to 2.2%) and the non-laboratory-based model 2.0% (95% CI 1.8% to 2.1%). In the Bland-Altman plots, the limits of agreement were the widest among people with diabetes (-0.21; 4.37) compared with people without diabetes (-1.17; 0.95). The lowest agreement as per the LCCC was also seen in people with diabetes (0.74 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.82)), the same was observed with the kappa statistic (kappa=0.36). In general, agreement between the scores was appropriate in terms of clinical significance. Conclusions The absolute cardiovascular predicted risk was similar between the laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based 2019 WHO cardiovascular risk models. Pending validation from longitudinal studies, the non-laboratory-based model (instead of the laboratory-based) could be used when assessing CVD risk in Peruvian population.
AB - Objective To determine the agreement between the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk predictions computed with the WHO non-laboratory-based model and laboratory-based model in a nationally representative sample of Peruvian adults. Design Cross-sectional analysis of a national health survey. Methods Absolute CVD risk was computed with the 2019 WHO laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based models. The risk predictions from both models were compared with Bland-Altman plots, Lin's concordance coefficient correlation (LCCC), and kappa statistics, stratified by sex, age, body mass index categories, smoking and diabetes status. Results 663 people aged 30-59 years were included in the analysis. Overall, there were no substantial differences between the mean CVD risk computed with the laboratory-based model 2.0% (95% CI 1.8% to 2.2%) and the non-laboratory-based model 2.0% (95% CI 1.8% to 2.1%). In the Bland-Altman plots, the limits of agreement were the widest among people with diabetes (-0.21; 4.37) compared with people without diabetes (-1.17; 0.95). The lowest agreement as per the LCCC was also seen in people with diabetes (0.74 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.82)), the same was observed with the kappa statistic (kappa=0.36). In general, agreement between the scores was appropriate in terms of clinical significance. Conclusions The absolute cardiovascular predicted risk was similar between the laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based 2019 WHO cardiovascular risk models. Pending validation from longitudinal studies, the non-laboratory-based model (instead of the laboratory-based) could be used when assessing CVD risk in Peruvian population.
KW - adult cardiology
KW - cardiac epidemiology
KW - epidemiology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85141894726&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063289
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063289
M3 - Artículo
C2 - 36344007
AN - SCOPUS:85141894726
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 12
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 11
M1 - 063289
ER -