TY - JOUR T1 - Cardiovascular risk prediction in type 2 diabetes: a comparison of 22 risk scores in primary care setting JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.10.08.20209015 SP - 2020.10.08.20209015 AU - K Dziopa AU - F W Asselbergs AU - J Gratton AU - N Chaturvedi AU - A F Schmidt Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/12/2020.10.08.20209015.1.abstract N2 - Objective To compare performance of general and diabetes specific cardiovascular risk prediction scores in type 2 diabetes patients (T2DM).Design Cohort study.Setting Scores were identified through a systematic review and included irrespective of predicted outcome, or inclusion of T2DM patients. Performance was assessed using data from routine practice.Participants A contemporary representative sample of 203,172 UK T2DM patients (age ≥ 18 years).Main outcome measures Cardiovascular disease (CVD i.e., coronary heart disease and stroke) and CVD+ (including atrial fibrillation and heart failure).Results We identified 22 scores: 11 derived in the general population, 9 in only T2DM patients, and 2 that excluded T2DM patients. Over 10 years follow-up, 63,000 events occurred. The RECODE score, derived in people with T2DM, performed best for both CVD (c-statistic 0.731 (0.728,0.734), and CVD+ (0.732 (0.729,0.735)). Overall, neither derivation population, nor original predicted outcome influenced performance. Calibration slopes (1 indicates perfect calibration) ranged from 0.38 (95%CI 0.37;0.39) to 1.05 (95%CI 1.03;1.07). A simple, population specific recalibration process considerably improved performance, ranging between 0.98 and 1.03. Risk scores performed badly in people with pre-existing CVD (c-statistic ∼0.55). Scores with more predictors did not perform better: for CVD+ QRISK3 (19 variables) c-statistic 0.69 (95%CI 0.68;0.69), compared to CHD Basic (8 variables) 0.71 (95%CI 0.70; 0.71).Conclusions CVD risk prediction scores performed well in T2DM, irrespective of derivation population and of original predicted outcome. Scores performed poorly in patients with established CVD. Complex scores with multiple variables did not outperform simple scores. A simple population specific recalibration markedly improved score performance and is recommended for future use.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialN/AFunding StatementKD is supported by NPIF programme grant MR/S502522/1. FA is supported by UCL Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. JG is supported by BHF grant FS/17/70/33482. AFS is supported by BHF grant PG/18/5033837 and the UCL BHF Research Accelerator AA/18/6/34223. NC is supported by a MRC Unit grant MRC_UU_00019/1.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was carried out as part of the CALIBER programme. CALIBER, led from the UCL Institute of Health Informatics, is a research resource consisting of anonymised, coded variables extracted from linked electronic health records, methods and tools, specialised infrastructure, and training and support. This study is based in part on data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink obtained under licence from the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The data is provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support. The interpretation and conclusions contained in this study are those of the author/s alone. The interpretation and conclusions contained in this study are those of the author/s alone. Copyright (2020), re-used with the permission of The Health & Social Care Information Centre. All rights reserved. The study was approved by the MHRA (UK) Independent Scientific Advisory Committee [17_155], under Section 251 (NHS Social Care Act 2006).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis study was carried out as part of the CALIBER programme. CALIBER, led from the UCL Institute of Health Informatics, is a research resource consisting of anonymised, coded variables extracted from linked electronic health records, methods and tools, specialised infrastructure, and training and support. This study is based in part on data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink obtained under licence from the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The data is provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support. The interpretation and conclusions contained in this study are those of the author/s alone. The interpretation and conclusions contained in this study are those of the author/s alone. Copyright (2020), re-used with the permission of The Health & Social Care Information Centre. All rights reserved. ER -