You don't need to be signed in to read BMJ Group Blogs, but you can register here to receive updates about other BMJ Group products and services via our Group site.

Mark Cobain on understanding cardiovascular risk

12 Aug, 09 | by julietwalker

Amidst all the debate regarding CVD risk scores, Rod Jackson’s recent editorial ‘QRISK or Framingham for predicting cardiovascular risk?’  evaluated the usefulness of two risk scores: QRISK and Framingham.  It is worth recalling that it is nearly twenty years since Framingham, the UK’s most widely used risk score was developed. Is it time we reassess how we measure CVD risk?

With the emergence of high quality datasets in other countries there has been a move towards the development of region or country-specific CVD risk scores (such as the European SCORE project and the UK Q-RISK function).

These new risk scores have their pros and cons. However, as with all risk scores, they face a common problem – how to motivate people to take action and reduce their risk.

The notion that someone is at ‘low’ or ‘moderate’ risk when their risk is <20% makes sense in the context of cost effective drug treatment, but this risk threshold has no biological meaning.

Everyone in young and mid-life will benefit from maintaining or lowering blood pressure and cholesterol, quitting smoking and avoiding diabetes. The danger is that absolute risk levels below 20% are communicated as ‘low’ or ‘moderate’ risk can lead to false reassurance or a ‘certificate of good health’.

We incorporated Heart Age into the most recent CVD risk function publication from the Framingham Study. Heart Age is the age at which the estimated risk would be considered normal (the absolute risk associated with normal risk factors for the age). We find people are more likely to understand their absolute risk if it is presented to them as an age, especially in individuals (typically <20%) with a higher level of modifiable risk factors.

It is important to identify which risk scores best estimate absolute risk in the UK as important treatment decisions are made which have consequences for the individual and the public purse. However, no matter which function we choose, the same ‘modifiable risk factors’ are incorporated and we should not forget that unless we help people across the continuum of risk to understand and act to make changes to these risk factors the bills will keep rolling in.

Dr Mark Cobain, works for Unilever as a research platform director for Nutrition and Health and conducts research into risk communication and perception. He has worked with the Framingham Heart Study data to develop communication tools for CVD primary prevention (Heart Age: www.florahearts.com) in collaboration with investigators from Boston University.

By submitting your comment you agree to adhere to these terms and conditions
  • Les Simpson

    Because there is a significant literature which documents the role of increased blood viscosity in CVD,
    it is surprising that such information is not recognised by clinicians. In addition, according to Ajmani and Rifkind of the Institute of Aging, increasing blood viscosity is a part of the aging process. Blood viscosity is increased by diets rich in meat and fat, a sedentary lifestyle and smoking.
    But if this major risk factor is ignored is there any value in using risk factors to advise patients.
    However, if the role of blood viscosity was recognised, then the individual could be made to accept some responsibility for his/her health problem by dietary modification, stopping smoking, and taking regular, low intensity physical activity such as walking, all of which reduce blood viscosity.

  • Dr.Nadaraja Bathirunathan

    Why did you cut off my comment?

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
BMJ blogs homepage

BMJ.com

Helping doctors make better decisions. Visit site



Creative Comms logo

Latest from BMJ.com

Latest from BMJ.com

Latest from BMJ.com podcasts

Latest from BMJ.com podcasts

Blogs linking here

Blogs linking here