SCORE model underestimates cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients: results of the Polish Hypertension Registry

SCORE and SCORE2 in East Asian Population: A Performance Comparison

Background

Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2) and SCORE2-Older Persons (OP) models have been proposed as new cardiovascular risk evaluation tools.

Objectives

This study evaluated the performance of SCORE/SCORE-OP and SCORE2/SCORE2-OP in the East Asian population by using population-based cohort data from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) Health Screening Cohort of Korea.

Methods

A total of 324,384 NHIS examinees from 2004 to 2005 were divided into 5 age groups: 40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years,70-79 years, and more than 80 years. The examinees had their predicted cardiovascular disease risks calculated by using SCORE, SCORE2, SCORE-OP, and SCORE2-OP models. The low-risk model was applied on the basis of the cohort's observed event rates. The observed and predicted cardiovascular risks were compared.

Results

A total of 324,384 subjects were included (mean age 51.4 ± 7.3 years; women, 37.9% for the SCORE/SCORE2 group and mean age 73.0 ± 2.8 years; women, 47.5% for the SCORE/SCORE2-OP group). Over a median follow-up of 9 years, cardiovascular events occurred in 15.0% and 28.9% in SCORE/SCORE2 and SCORE/SCORE2-OP groups, respectively. The SCORE/SCORE-OP model underestimated cardiovascular disease risk in young men (aged 40-49 years) and women (aged 40-59 years) and overestimated it in older age groups. In contrast, SCORE2/SCORE2-OP invariably overestimated the risk in all age groups and sexes. SCORE2/SCORE2-OP showed no improvement in Harrell's concordance index (C-index) compared with SCORE/SCORE-OP. Calibration plots favored SCORE2 over SCORE but not SCORE2-OP over SCORE-OP.

Conclusions

Both SCORE2/SCORE2-OP and SCORE/SCORE-OP overestimated cardiovascular disease risk with low performance. SCORE2/SCORE2-OP showed slight improvement over older versions, but modifications are necessary for the East Asian population.

Do patients or their physicians more accurately assess long-term risk associated with hypertension? A population-based study

Objective: To compare the assessments of 10-year probability by patients and their physicians of cardiovascular complications of hypertension with actual outcomes.Design: Patients with uncomplicated hypertension treated with at least one antihypertensive drug at inclusion were followed for 10 years through mandatory national health registers.Setting: 55 primary health care centres, 11 hospital outpatient clinics in SwedenPatients: 848 patient, 212 physicians.Main outcome measures: Patients and physicians estimated the probability of hypertension-related complications with treatment (death, heart failure, acute myocardial infarction/AMI, and stroke) for each patient in 848 pairs. Estimates were compared with the clinical outcomes 10 years later using data from the Mortality Register and the National Patient Register.Results: Patients were significantly better (p < 0.001) than their physicians in estimating the average probability of heart failure compared with actual outcome data (14% vs. 24%, outcome 15%), AMI (16% vs. 26%, outcome 8%), and stroke (15% vs. 25%, outcome 11%). Patients were significantly worse (p < 0.001) at estimating the average probability of death (10% vs. 18%, actual outcome 20%). Neither the patients nor the physicians were able to distinguish reliably between low-risk and high-risk patients after adjustment for age and sex.Conclusions: Patients were better than their physicians in estimating the average probability of morbidity due to hypertension. Both the patients and their attending physicians had difficulty in estimating the individual patient's risk of complications. The results support the use of evidence-based tools in consultations for assessing the risk of cardiovascular complications associated with hypertension.Key points • Shared decision making relies on a common understanding of risks and benefits. Tools for risk assessment of hypertension have been introduced in the last two decades. • Without tools for risk assessment, both patients and physicians had difficulties in estimating the individual patient's risk of cardiovascular morbidity. • Patients were better than physicians in estimating actual average cardiovascular morbidity due to hypertension during a follow-up of 10 years. • The results support the use of evidence-based tools in consultations for assessing the risk of cardiovascular complications associated with hypertension.

New insights into the management of hypertension and cardiovascular risk with Angiotensin receptor blockers: observational studies help us?

Post-marketing observational studies are valuable for establishing the real-world effectiveness of treatment regimens in routine clinical practice as they typically monitor a diverse population of patients over many months. This article reviews recent observational studies of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for the management of hypertension: the 6-month eprosartan POWER study (n~29,400), the 3-month valsartan translational research programme (n~19,500), the 9-month irbesartan Treat to Target study (n=14,200), the 6-month irbesartan DO-IT survey (n~3300) and the 12-week candesartan CHILI survey programme (n=4600). Reduction in blood pressure with ARBs reported across these studies appears to be comparable for the different agents, although direct comparisons between studies cannot be made owing to different treatment durations and baseline patient demographics. Of these studies, the eprosartan POWER study, 2 of the 7 studies in the valsartan translational research programme, and the candesartan CHILI Triple T study measured total cardiovascular risk, as recommended in the 2013 European Society of Cardiology-European Society of Hypertension guidelines. The POWER study confirmed the value of the Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) to accurately assess total cardiovascular risk.

With the advent of new healthcare practices, such as the use of electronic health records (EHRs), observational studies in larger patient populations will become possible. In the future, algorithms embedded in EHR systems could evolve as decision support tools to inform on patient care.