Comparison of the performance of cardiovascular risk prediction tools in rural India: the Rishi Valley Prospective Cohort Study

Aims We compared the performance of cardiovascular risk prediction tools in rural India. Methods and results We applied the World Health Organization Risk Score (WHO-RS) tools, Australian Risk Score (ARS), and Global risk (Globorisk) prediction tools to participants aged 40-74 years, without prior cardiovascular disease, in the Rishi Valley Prospective Cohort Study, Andhra Pradesh, India. Cardiovascular events during the 5-year follow-up period were identified by verbal autopsy (fatal events) or self-report (non-fatal events). The predictive performance of each tool was assessed by discrimination and calibration. Sensitivity and specificity of each tool for identifying high-risk individuals were assessed using a risk score cut-off of 10% alone or this 10% cut-off plus clinical risk criteria of diabetes in those aged >60 years, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol. Among 2333 participants (10 731 person-years of follow-up), 102 participants developed a cardiovascular event. The 5-year observed risk was 4.4% (95% confidence interval: 3.6-5.3). The WHO-RS tools underestimated cardiovascular risk but the ARS overestimated risk, particularly in men. Both the laboratory-based (C-statistic: 0.68 and chi(2): 26.5, P = 0.003) and non-laboratory-based (C-statistic: 0.69 and chi(2): 20.29, P = 0.003) Globorisk tools showed relatively good discrimination and agreement. Addition of clinical criteria to a 10% risk score cut-off improved the diagnostic accuracy of all tools. Conclusion Cardiovascular risk prediction tools performed disparately in a setting of disadvantage in rural India, with the Globorisk performing best. Addition of clinical criteria to a 10% risk score cut-off aids assessment of risk of a cardiovascular event in rural India.