Validation of Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2) and SCORE2-Older Persons in the EPIC-Norfolk prospective population cohort

Publication date

2024-01-01

Authors

Van Trier, Tinka J.
Snaterse, Marjolein
Boekholdt, S. Matthijs
Scholte Op Reimer, Wilma J.M.
Hageman, Steven
Visseren, Frank L JISNI 0000000389493675
Dorresteijn, Jannick AnORCID 0000-0002-0190-8526ISNI 0000000419437536
Peters, Ron J.G.
Jørstad, Harald T.

Editors

Advisors

Supervisors

Document Type

Article

Collections

Open Access logo

License

cc_by_nc

Abstract

Aims: The European Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2) and SCORE2-Older Persons (OP) models are recommended to identify individuals at high 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Independent validation and assessment of clinical utility is needed. This study aims to assess discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of low-risk SCORE2 and SCORE2-OP. Methods and results: Validation in individuals aged 40-69 years (SCORE2) and 70-79 years (SCORE2-OP) without baseline CVD or diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC) Norfolk prospective population study. We compared 10-year CVD risk estimates with observed outcomes (cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke). For SCORE2, 19 560 individuals (57% women) had 10-year CVD risk estimates of 3.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.6-3.7] vs. observed 3.8% (95% CI 3.6-4.1) [observed (O)/expected (E) ratio 1.0 (95% CI 1.0-1.1)]. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.77), with underestimation of risk in men [O/E 1.4 (95% CI 1.3-1.6)] and overestimation in women [O/E 0.7 (95% CI 0.6-0.8)]. Decision curve analysis (DCA) showed clinical benefit. Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2-Older Persons in 3113 individuals (58% women) predicted 10-year CVD events in 10.2% (95% CI 10.1-10.3) vs. observed 15.3% (95% CI 14.0-16.5) [O/E ratio 1.6 (95% CI 1.5-1.7)]. The AUC was 0.63 (95% CI 0.60-0.65) with underestimation of risk across sex and risk ranges. Decision curve analysis showed limited clinical benefit. Conclusion: In a UK population cohort, the SCORE2 low-risk model showed fair discrimination and calibration, with clinical benefit for preventive treatment initiation decisions. In contrast, in individuals aged 70-79 years, SCORE2-OP demonstrated poor discrimination, underestimated risk in both sexes, and limited clinical utility.

Keywords

Clinical utility, Primary prevention, Risk assessment, Scores, Validation, Epidemiology, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Journal Article

Citation

Van Trier, T J, Snaterse, M, Boekholdt, S M, Scholte Op Reimer, W J M, Hageman, S H J, Visseren, F L J, Dorresteijn, J A N, Peters, R J G & Jørstad, H T 2024, 'Validation of Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2) and SCORE2-Older Persons in the EPIC-Norfolk prospective population cohort', European journal of preventive cardiology, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 182-189. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwad318