Comparative Study of Prognostic Value for Coronary Disease Risk Between the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study and Framingham Models

Protopsaltis, Ioannis; Konstantinopoulos, Panayiotis A.; Kamaratos, A.; Melidonis, Andreas

doi:10.2337/diacare.27.1.277

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For 14 comparisons, the authors either claimed that both models had poor or equal discriminatory ability or did not comment on their relative performance [16,19,29,[31][32][33][34]36]. In one pair wise comparison, the authors favored the general population model (Framingham equation [37]) over a diabetes-specific risk model. In two articles including six pair wise comparisons, the authors favored the models they had themselves developed [19,24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative performance of diabetes-specific and general population-based cardiovascular risk assessment models in people with diabetes mellitus

Echouffo‐Tcheugui

Kengne

2013

Diabetes & Metabolism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative performance of diabetes-specific and general population-based cardiovascular risk assessment models in people with diabetes mellitus

Echouffo‐Tcheugui

Kengne

2013

Diabetes & Metabolism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several studies have suggested that Framingham coronary heart disease (CHD) risk prediction equation underestimates risk among people with Type 2 diabetes [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Proposals to address this issue have included: adding a weighting or calibration factor to the predicted Framingham risk [7,8]; using a lower CHD risk threshold [9,10] or using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) CHD risk prediction equation which was derived from a large cohort of people with newly diagnosed diabetes [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing 10-year coronary heart disease risk in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus: Framingham versus United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study

Metcalf¹,

Wells²,

Jackson³

2014

JDM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: Previous studies have suggested that the Framingham coronary heart disease risk prediction equation underestimates risk among people with Type 2 diabetes. We compared the 10-year absolute risks of coronary heart disease (CHD) using a Framingham equation and a United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) equation in adults with Type 2 diabetes. Methods: Participants were from a cross-sectional survey of a randomly selected population. There were 461 people with newly (n = 132) or previously diagnosed (n = 329) diabetes aged 35 to 74 years with no past history of cardiovascular disease or nephropathy. We examined predicted 10-year CHD risk by age, gender, and newly or previously diagnosed diabetes. Results: Overall the mean 10-year CHD risks predicted by the two equations were similar. Among men, the UKPDS and Framingham scores were almost identical below 60 years of age but at older ages, the UKPDS score was 4%-11% higher than Framingham. For women, the Framingham score was higher than the UKPDS score between ages 40 and 65 years, but the UKPDS score was about 4%-5% higher for women aged 70 years and over. The UKPDS equation tended to give higher risk estimates in people with a predicted 10-year Framingham CHD risk above 15%. Conclusion: Framingham CHD risk scores tended to be lower than UKPDS scores primarily in people above standard thresholds for drug treatment, so the clinical impact of underestimating risk is likely to be limited. Moreover, the UKPDS equation predicted lower risks than Framingham for women and newly diagnosed diabetes at otherwise low to moderate CHD risk, which could result in later initiation of therapy in these groups if the UKPDS score was used instead of the Framingham score.

show abstract

“…1). Protopsaltis et al [98] and McEwan et al [45] also found poor prediction with the UKPDS risk engine. Guzder et al [87] observed better estimation of CHD risk using the UKPDS method compared with the Framingham-Anderson method.…”

Section: Risk Scoring In Diabetesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Framingham risk scoring methods tend to underestimate risk in diabetic populations [45,87,98] (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Risk Scoring In Diabetesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk scoring in the assessment of cardiovascular risk

Beswick

Brindle

2006

Current Opinion in Lipidology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Comparative Study of Prognostic Value for Coronary Disease Risk Between the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study and Framingham Models

Abstract: References 1. Aso Y, Okumura K-I, Takebayashi K, Wakabayashi S, Inukai T: Relationships of plasma interleukin-18 concentrations to hyperhomocysteinemia and carotid intima-media wall thickness in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

Comparative performance of diabetes-specific and general population-based cardiovascular risk assessment models in people with diabetes mellitus

Comparative performance of diabetes-specific and general population-based cardiovascular risk assessment models in people with diabetes mellitus

Assessing 10-year coronary heart disease risk in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus: Framingham versus United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study

Risk scoring in the assessment of cardiovascular risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About