title: Coronary risk assessment by point-based vs. equation-based Framingham models: significant implications for clinical care.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
authors.forename: William J
authors.initials: WJ
authors.lastname: Gordon
authors.forename: Jesse M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Polansky
authors.forename: W John
authors.initials: WJ
authors.lastname: Boscardin
authors.forename: Kathy Z
authors.initials: KZ
authors.lastname: Fung
authors.forename: Michael A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Steinman
mesh_terms: 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
chemical_list: D008078:Cholesterol, LDL; D008075:Lipoproteins, HDL; D002784:Cholesterol
references.citation: Circulation. 2008 Feb 12;117(6):743-53
references.pmid: 18212285
references.citation: Circulation. 2004 Jul 13;110(2):227-39
references.pmid: 15249516
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2009 Feb 17;150(4):243-54
references.pmid: 19221376
references.citation: Am J Cardiol. 2006 Mar 15;97(6):765-7
references.pmid: 16516571
references.citation: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008 Nov;1(2):92-7
references.pmid: 20031795
references.citation: BMJ. 2003 Jun 28;326(7404):1423
references.pmid: 12829554
references.citation: BMJ. 2004 Oct 2;329(7469):759
references.pmid: 15459035
references.citation: BMJ. 2010 May 20;340:c2197
references.pmid: 20488911
references.citation: Prev Med. 2006 Nov;43(5):368-71
references.pmid: 16908056
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2008 Nov 18;149(10):751-60
references.pmid: 19017593
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Dec;18(12):1039-52
references.pmid: 14687264
references.citation: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Sep 1;44(5):1009-10
references.pmid: 15337211
references.citation: JAMA. 2001 Jul 11;286(2):180-7
references.pmid: 11448281
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21(2):171-6
references.pmid: 16390501
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 30;351(27):2870-4
references.pmid: 15625341
references.citation: Circulation. 1998 May 12;97(18):1837-47
references.pmid: 9603539
references.citation: BMJ. 2006 Jun 17;332(7555):1419
references.pmid: 16737980
references.citation: BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):695-6
references.pmid: 14512452
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2006 Mar 7;144(5):326-36
references.pmid: 16520473
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2008 Jun 9;168(11):1209-16
references.pmid: 18541829
references.citation: Fam Pract. 2006 Feb;23(1):28-33
references.pmid: 16243952
references.citation: Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Mar;83(3):498-500
references.pmid: 17538549
references.citation: Circulation. 2002 Jan 15;105(2):152-6
references.pmid: 11790693
references.citation: Stat Med. 1999 Mar 30;18(6):681-94
references.pmid: 10204197
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2009 Jun 2;150(11):795-802
references.pmid: 19487714
references.citation: BMJ. 1994 Feb 5;308(6925):367-72
references.pmid: 8043072
references.citation: Drug Saf. 2007;30(8):669-75
references.pmid: 17696579
references.citation: JAMA. 2001 May 16;285(19):2486-97
references.pmid: 11368702
references.citation: Health Technol Assess. 2007 Apr;11(14):1-160, iii-iv
references.pmid: 17408535
references.citation: BMJ. 2003 Nov 29;327(7426):1267
references.pmid: 14644971
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2006 Oct 3;145(7):520-30
references.pmid: 17015870
references.citation: Stat Med. 2004 May 30;23(10):1631-60
references.pmid: 15122742