Could clinical decision rules relying on cardiovascular risk models increase psychosocial inequalities in health? Results from the PRIME cohort study

Abstract

Objective Guidelines on cardiovascular prevention relying on common cardiovascular risk scoring could result in delayed drug therapy for patients with low psychosocial status because of underestimation of true cardiovascular risk. We aimed to assess the potential delay in drug therapy for subjects with adverse psychosocial factors. Method The study population consisted of 6185 French men from the PRIME (Prospective Epidemiological Study of Myocardial Infarction) cohort study (1991–2003). The number of extra years to reach a risk threshold for subjects without adverse psychosocial factor compared to subject with adverse psychosocial factor was estimated using a coronary risk model including biomedical factors and a psychosocial variable (education, occupation, living conditions or a depression score). Results Coronary risk was significantly higher only for subjects with a high depression score (odds ratio = 1.34; 95% confidence interval 1.04, 1.72) or low educational attainment (odds ratio = 1.39; 95% confidence interval = 1.07, 1.81). For a given risk threshold, subjects with high depression scores were 4.5 years (95% confidence interval = 0.0, 15.4 years) younger than subjects with low depression scores. The age difference was 4.1 years (95% confidence interval = − 0.5, 15.8 years) between subjects with low and high educational attainment. Conclusion Clinical decision rules relying on classic cardiovascular risk scoring could result in delayed drug therapy for patients with depression or low educational attainment.