Comparison of prediction models for cardiovascular and mortality risk in people with type 2 diabetes: An external validation in 23 685 adults included in the UK Biobank

Author:

Zhang Yikun1ORCID,Jiong Ong Xin1ORCID,Tang Shiqi1,Tang Yui Chit1,Wong Cheuk Tung1,Ng Carmen S.1ORCID,Quan Jianchao12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Public Health, LKS Faculty of Medicine The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR China

2. HKU Business School The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR China

Abstract

AbstractAimsTo validate cardiovascular risk prediction models for individuals with diabetes using the UK Biobank in order to assess their applicability.MethodsWe externally validated 19 cardiovascular risk scores from seven risk prediction models (Chang et al., Framingham, University of Hong Kong‐Singapore [HKU‐SG], Li et al, RECODe [risk equations for complications of type 2 diabetes], SCORE [Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation] and the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 [UKPDS OM2]), identified from systematic reviews, using UK Biobank data from 2006 to 2021 (n = 23 685; participant age 40–71 years, 63.5% male). We evaluated performance by assessing the discrimination and calibration of the models for the endpoints of mortality, cardiovascular mortality, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and ischaemic heart disease.ResultsOver a total of 269 430 person‐years of follow‐up (median 11.89 years), the models showed low‐to‐moderate discrimination performance on external validation (concordance indices [c‐indices] 0.50–0.71). Most models had low calibration with overprediction of the observed risk. RECODe outperformed other models across four comparable endpoints for discrimination: all‐cause mortality (c‐index 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–0.69), congestive heart failure (c‐index 0.71, 95% CI 0.69–0.72), myocardial infarction (c‐index 0.67, 95% CI 0.65–0.68); and stroke (c‐index 0.65, 95% CI 0.62–0.68), and for calibration (except for all‐cause mortality). The UKPDS OM2 had comparable performance to RECODe for all‐cause mortality (c‐index 0.67, 95% CI 0.66–0.69) and cardiovascular mortality (c‐index 0.71, 95% CI 0.70–0.73), but worse performance for other outcomes. The models performed better for younger participants and somewhat better for non‐White ethnicities. Models developed from non‐Western datasets showed worse performance in our UK‐based validation set.ConclusionsThe RECODe model led to better risk estimations in this predominantly White European population. Further validation is needed in non‐Western populations to assess generalizability to other populations.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Endocrinology,Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism,Internal Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3