Coronary risk assessment by point-based vs. equation-based Framingham models: significant implications for clinical care.
BACKGROUND
US cholesterol guidelines use original and simplified versions of the Framingham model to estimate future coronary risk and thereby classify patients into risk groups with different treatment strategies. We sought to compare risk estimates and risk group classification generated by the original, complex Framingham model and the simplified, point-based version.


METHODS
We assessed 2,543 subjects age 20-79 from the 2001-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) for whom Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III) guidelines recommend formal risk stratification. For each subject, we calculated the 10-year risk of major coronary events using the original and point-based Framingham models, and then compared differences in these risk estimates and whether these differences would place subjects into different ATP-III risk groups (<10% risk, 10-20% risk, or >20% risk). Using standard procedures, all analyses were adjusted for survey weights, clustering, and stratification to make our results nationally representative.


RESULTS
Among 39 million eligible adults, the original Framingham model categorized 71% of subjects as having "moderate" risk (<10% risk of a major coronary event in the next 10 years), 22% as having "moderately high" (10-20%) risk, and 7% as having "high" (>20%) risk. Estimates of coronary risk by the original and point-based models often differed substantially. The point-based system classified 15% of adults (5.7 million) into different risk groups than the original model, with 10% (3.9 million) misclassified into higher risk groups and 5% (1.8 million) into lower risk groups, for a net impact of classifying 2.1 million adults into higher risk groups. These risk group misclassifications would impact guideline-recommended drug treatment strategies for 25-46% of affected subjects. Patterns of misclassifications varied significantly by gender, age, and underlying CHD risk.


CONCLUSIONS
Compared to the original Framingham model, the point-based version misclassifies millions of Americans into risk groups for which guidelines recommend different treatment strategies.
Gordon
William J
WJ
Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Polansky
Jesse M
JM
Boscardin
W John
WJ
Fung
Kathy Z
KZ
Steinman
Michael A
MA
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002784:Cholesterol / Q000097:blood; D008078:Cholesterol, LDL / Q000097:blood; D015331:Cohort Studies; D003327:Coronary Disease / Q000453:epidemiology*; D006801:Humans; D008075:Lipoproteins, HDL / Q000097:blood; D008487:Medical History Taking; D008875:Middle Aged; D009749:Nutrition Surveys; D044469:Racial Groups; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology; D055815:Young Adult
D008078:Cholesterol, LDL; D008075:Lipoproteins, HDL; D002784:Cholesterol
Circulation. 2008 Feb 12;117(6):743-53
18212285
Circulation. 2004 Jul 13;110(2):227-39
15249516
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Feb 17;150(4):243-54
19221376
Am J Cardiol. 2006 Mar 15;97(6):765-7
16516571
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008 Nov;1(2):92-7
20031795
BMJ. 2003 Jun 28;326(7404):1423
12829554
BMJ. 2004 Oct 2;329(7469):759
15459035
BMJ. 2010 May 20;340:c2197
20488911
Prev Med. 2006 Nov;43(5):368-71
16908056
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Nov 18;149(10):751-60
19017593
J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Dec;18(12):1039-52
14687264
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Sep 1;44(5):1009-10
15337211
JAMA. 2001 Jul 11;286(2):180-7
11448281
J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21(2):171-6
16390501
N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 30;351(27):2870-4
15625341
Circulation. 1998 May 12;97(18):1837-47
9603539
BMJ. 2006 Jun 17;332(7555):1419
16737980
BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):695-6
14512452
Ann Intern Med. 2006 Mar 7;144(5):326-36
16520473
Arch Intern Med. 2008 Jun 9;168(11):1209-16
18541829
Fam Pract. 2006 Feb;23(1):28-33
16243952
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Mar;83(3):498-500
17538549
Circulation. 2002 Jan 15;105(2):152-6
11790693
Stat Med. 1999 Mar 30;18(6):681-94
10204197
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Jun 2;150(11):795-802
19487714
BMJ. 1994 Feb 5;308(6925):367-72
8043072
Drug Saf. 2007;30(8):669-75
17696579
JAMA. 2001 May 16;285(19):2486-97
11368702
Health Technol Assess. 2007 Apr;11(14):1-160, iii-iv
17408535
BMJ. 2003 Nov 29;327(7426):1267
14644971
Ann Intern Med. 2006 Oct 3;145(7):520-30
17015870
Stat Med. 2004 May 30;23(10):1631-60
15122742