Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2019
Predictive Performance of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction Algorithms in People Living With HIV.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
van Zoest Rosan A, Law Matthew, Sabin Caroline A, Vaartjes Ilonca, van der Valk Marc, Arends Joop E, Reiss Peter, Wit Ferdinand W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: People living with HIV (PLWH) experience a higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Yet, traditional algorithms are often used to estimate CVD risk. We evaluated the performance of 4 commonly used algorithms.
SETTING: The Netherlands.
METHODS: We used data from 16,070 PLWH aged ≥18 years, who were in care between 2000 and 2016, had no pre-existing CVD, had initiated first combination antiretroviral therapy >1 year ago, and had available data on CD4 count, smoking status, cholesterol, and blood pressure. Predictive performance of 4 algorithms [Data Collection on Adverse Effects of Anti-HIV Drugs Study (D:A:D); Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation adjusted for national data (SCORE-NL); Framingham CVD Risk Score (FRS); and American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE)] was evaluated using a Kaplan-Meier approach. Model discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C-statistic. Calibration was assessed using observed-versus-expected ratios, calibration plots, and Greenwood-Nam-D'Agostino goodness-of-fit tests.
RESULTS: All algorithms showed acceptable discrimination (Harrell's C-statistic 0.73-0.79). On a population level, D:A:D, SCORE-NL, and PCE slightly underestimated, whereas FRS slightly overestimated CVD risk (observed-versus-expected ratios 1.35, 1.38, 1.14, and 0.92, respectively). D:A:D, FRS, and PCE best fitted our data but still yielded a statistically significant lack of fit (Greenwood-Nam-D'Agostino χ ranged from 24.57 to 34.22, P < 0.05). Underestimation of CVD risk was particularly observed in low-predicted CVD risk groups.
CONCLUSIONS: All algorithms perform reasonably well in PLWH, with SCORE-NL performing poorest. Prediction algorithms are useful for clinical practice, but clinicians should be aware of their limitations (ie, lack of fit and slight underestimation of CVD risk in low-risk groups).
SETTING: The Netherlands.
METHODS: We used data from 16,070 PLWH aged ≥18 years, who were in care between 2000 and 2016, had no pre-existing CVD, had initiated first combination antiretroviral therapy >1 year ago, and had available data on CD4 count, smoking status, cholesterol, and blood pressure. Predictive performance of 4 algorithms [Data Collection on Adverse Effects of Anti-HIV Drugs Study (D:A:D); Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation adjusted for national data (SCORE-NL); Framingham CVD Risk Score (FRS); and American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE)] was evaluated using a Kaplan-Meier approach. Model discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C-statistic. Calibration was assessed using observed-versus-expected ratios, calibration plots, and Greenwood-Nam-D'Agostino goodness-of-fit tests.
RESULTS: All algorithms showed acceptable discrimination (Harrell's C-statistic 0.73-0.79). On a population level, D:A:D, SCORE-NL, and PCE slightly underestimated, whereas FRS slightly overestimated CVD risk (observed-versus-expected ratios 1.35, 1.38, 1.14, and 0.92, respectively). D:A:D, FRS, and PCE best fitted our data but still yielded a statistically significant lack of fit (Greenwood-Nam-D'Agostino χ ranged from 24.57 to 34.22, P < 0.05). Underestimation of CVD risk was particularly observed in low-predicted CVD risk groups.
CONCLUSIONS: All algorithms perform reasonably well in PLWH, with SCORE-NL performing poorest. Prediction algorithms are useful for clinical practice, but clinicians should be aware of their limitations (ie, lack of fit and slight underestimation of CVD risk in low-risk groups).