SCORE and SCORE2 in East Asian Population: A Performance Comparison

Abstract

BackgroundSystematic COronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2) and SCORE2-Older Persons (OP) models have been proposed as new cardiovascular risk evaluation tools. ObjectivesThis study evaluated the performance of SCORE/SCORE-OP and SCORE2/SCORE2-OP in the East Asian population by using population-based cohort data from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) Health Screening Cohort of Korea. MethodsA total of 324,384 NHIS examinees from 2004 to 2005 were divided into 5 age groups: 40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years,70-79 years, and more than 80 years. The examinees had their predicted cardiovascular disease risks calculated by using SCORE, SCORE2, SCORE-OP, and SCORE2-OP models. The low-risk model was applied on the basis of the cohort’s observed event rates. The observed and predicted cardiovascular risks were compared. ResultsA total of 324,384 subjects were included (mean age 51.4 ± 7.3 years; women, 37.9% for the SCORE/SCORE2 group and mean age 73.0 ± 2.8 years; women, 47.5% for the SCORE/SCORE2-OP group). Over a median follow-up of 9 years, cardiovascular events occurred in 15.0% and 28.9% in SCORE/SCORE2 and SCORE/SCORE2-OP groups, respectively. The SCORE/SCORE-OP model underestimated cardiovascular disease risk in young men (aged 40-49 years) and women (aged 40-59 years) and overestimated it in older age groups. In contrast, SCORE2/SCORE2-OP invariably overestimated the risk in all age groups and sexes. SCORE2/SCORE2-OP showed no improvement in Harrell’s concordance index (C-index) compared with SCORE/SCORE-OP. Calibration plots favored SCORE2 over SCORE but not SCORE2-OP over SCORE-OP. ConclusionsBoth SCORE2/SCORE2-OP and SCORE/SCORE-OP overestimated cardiovascular disease risk with low performance. SCORE2/SCORE2-OP showed slight improvement over older versions, but modifications are necessary for the East Asian population.