The relevance of competing risk adjustment in cardiovascular risk prediction models for clinical practice

Abstract Background Many models developed for predicting the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) are adjusted for the competing risk of non-CVD mortality, which has been suggested to reduce potential overestimation of cumulative incidence in populations where the risk of competing events is high. The objective was to evaluate and illustrate the clinical impact of competing risk adjustment when deriving a CVD prediction model in a high-risk population. Methods and results Individuals with established atherosclerotic CVD were included from the Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort—Secondary Manifestations of ARTerial disease (UCC-SMART). In 8355 individuals, followed for a median of 8.2 years (IQR 4.2–12.5), two similar prediction models for the estimation of 10-year residual CVD risk were derived: with competing risk adjustment using a Fine and Gray model and without competing risk adjustment using a Cox proportional hazards model. On average, predictions were higher from the Cox model. The Cox model predictions overestimated the cumulative incidence [predicted–observed ratio 1.14 (95% CI 1.09–1.20)], which was most apparent in the highest risk quartiles and in older persons. Discrimination of both models was similar. When determining treatment eligibility on thresholds of predicted risks, more individuals would be treated based on the Cox model predictions. If, for example, individuals with a predicted risk > 20% were considered eligible for treatment, 34% of the population would be treated according to the Fine and Gray model predictions and 44% according to the Cox model predictions. Interpretation Individual predictions from the model unadjusted for competing risks were higher, reflecting the different interpretations of both models. For models aiming to accurately predict absolute risks, especially in high-risk populations, competing risk adjustment must be considered.