Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Agreement between the laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based WHO cardiovascular risk charts: a cross-sectional analysis of a national health survey in Peru

  • Wilmer Cristobal Guzman-Vilca
    ,
  • Gustavo A. Quispe-Villegas
    ,
  • Fritz Fidel Váscones Román
    ,
  • ,
  • Rodrigo M. Carrillo-Larco(corresponding author)
*Corresponding author for this work
  • Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Facultad de Medicina Alberto Hurtado
    ,
  • Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia
    ,
  • ,
  • Universidad Continental, Huancayo
    ,
  • Imperial College London
Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Open access

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English

Article number

063289

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

BMJ Open (Volume 12, Issue 11)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 07/11/2022

Publication status

Published - 07/11/2022

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85141894726
  • PubMed: 36344007

Abstract

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.

Funding Details

RMC-L is supported by a Wellcome Trust International Training Fellowship (214185/Z/18/Z).
FundersFunding numbers
WT
214185/Z/18/Z

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
Citations

PlumX, opens in new tab

Social media
10
Captures
16
Mentions
1
Citations
6

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well