The increase in statin eligibility by the new cholesterol guidelines is mostly driven by the Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE) criterion (≥7.5% 10-year PCE). The impact of replacing the PCE with either the modified Framingham Risk Score (FRS) or the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) on assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk assessment and statin eligibility remains unknown. We assessed the comparative benefits of using the PCE, FRS, and SCORE for ASCVD risk assessment in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Of 6,815 participants, 654 (mean age 61.4 ± 10.3; 47.1% men; 37.1% whites; 27.2% blacks; 22.3% Hispanics; 12.0% Chinese-Americans) were included in analysis. Area under the curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis were used to compare the 3 risk scores. Decision curve analysis is the plot of net benefit versus probability thresholds; net benefit = true positive rate − (false positive rate × weighting factor). Weighting factor = Threshold probability/1 − threshold probability. After a median of 8.6 years, 342 (6.0%) ASCVD events (myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, fatal or nonfatal stroke) occurred. All 4 risk scores had acceptable discriminative ability for incident ASCVD events; (AUC [95% CI] PCE: 0.737 [0.713 to 0.762]; FRS: 0.717 [0.691 to 0.743], SCORE (high risk) 0.722 [0.696 to 0.747], and SCORE (low risk): 0.721 [0.696 to 0.746]. At the ASCVD risk threshold recommended for statin eligibility for primary prevention (≥7.5%), the PCE provides the best net benefit. Replacing the PCE with the SCORE (high), SCORE (low) and FRS results in a 2.9%, 8.9%, and 17.1% further increase in statin eligibility. The PCE has the best discrimination and net benefit for primary ASCVD risk assessment in a US-based multiethnic cohort compared with the SCORE or the FRS.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine