| Title: | 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 |
| Journal: | Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism |
| Published: | 31 Jan 2024 |
| Pubmed: | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38297974/ |
| DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.15474 |
| Citations: | 1 (1 in last 2 years) as of 8 Aug 2024 |
Publication 8842
WARNING: the interactive features of this website use CSS3, which your browser does not support. To use the full features of this website, please update your browser.
Abstract
AIMS: To validate cardiovascular risk prediction models for individuals with diabetes using the UK Biobank in order to assess their applicability.</p>
METHODS: We 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.</p>
RESULTS: Over 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.</p>
CONCLUSIONS: The 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.</p>
7 Authors
- Yikun Zhang
- Ong Xin Jiong
- Shiqi Tang
- Yui Chit Tang
- Cheuk Tung Wong
- Carmen S. Ng
- Jianchao Quan
Enabling scientific discoveries that improve human health