Abstract:Scheuermann et al 1 set out to validate the American Heart Association's Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events (PREVENT) 10-year cardiovascular disease risk equations, 2 using a large US-based population, and to compare these equations with the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCEs). The study focused on the base PREVENT equation and applied risk scores within competing-risks adjusted hazard regression models. The PREVENT equations demonstrated exceptional performance in predicting fatal cardiovascular events over a 10-year follow-up period, with a C statistic of 0.890. The performance was notably higher than what was previously reported by the American Heart Association working group that developed the equations. 2 The results remained consistent even after well-designed sensitivity analyses, which excluded participants with outlier values of clinical variables, adhering to the methods used by the PREVENT working group. Most importantly, the study robustly demonstrated the improved predictive capability of the PREVENT equations over the PCE through metrics of discrimination, calibration, and reclassification. Although the present study does not validate the full extent of PREVENT on a broader US population by incorporating the new PREVENT elements introduced into the risk estimation rubric, it primarily achieves a comparison of the frameworks of the 2 equations, indicating the comparative superiority of one over the other. The American Heart Association recently proposed a new risk assessment construct, the cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome, and introduced the accompanying PREVENT equations, which represent an update to the PCEs originally adopted in 2013. 2 ,3 Developed using data from more than 3 million adults from 25 contemporary databases, the PREVENT equations offer an updated estimation of risk, accounting for the changing landscape of risk factors in the population. The PCEs, which were derived from 5 cohorts initially recruited between the 1940s and 1980s, have been criticized for potentially miscalculating risk by not accounting for the current diversity of the US population. 4 Compared with the PCEs, the PREVENT equations omit race, include measures of renal function and statin use, and were developed using more diverse and contemporary cohorts, many of which were derived from electronic health record data. The PREVENT equations also expand the permitted age range in the equations, allow for both 10-year and 30-year risk estimation, and account for new parameters such as the social deprivation index, hemoglobin, and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio in the expanded version. The present study 1 is a commendable effort toward the adoption of the base PREVENT equations in current practice, by examining the utility of the tool in the 1999 to 2010 period from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES). In this contemporary population, the authors report significantly better reclassification of risk by the PREVENT equation compared with the PCE, predominantly as a result of downward reclassification of individuals for whom risk may have been overestimated by PCE. The findings of the present investigation 1 should be interpreted with caution because of certain limitations. First, the full spectrum of outcomes that the PREVENT equations are designed to detect could not be assessed, as the investigators were limited by the variables available in NHANES. Only cardiovascular mortality outcomes were evaluated, with NHANES collapsing International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes to define these outcomes. Consequently, any issues with the definition of outcome events and the exclusion of certain nonfatal cardiovascular events not included in NHANES surveillance preclude a comprehensive assessment of model performance. Ascertainment of nonfatal events would likely correct any overestimation of risk and potentially refine the model, addressing the underfitting reported in the present study. Next, there are a few fundamental considerations regarding the aim of the study to validate the PREVENT score in a nationally representative population. Although NHANES is a large, stratified sample intended to be representative of the US population, the utilization of weighted samples for model comparisons, such as the PCE vs PREVENT in this instance, is often restricted for analytical reasons. The study by Scheuermann et al 1 includes a substantial sample size of 24 582 adults (weighted, 172.9 million) from a US-based population, arguably well-suited for applying the PREVENT and PCE equations and making comparisons based on available clinical variables. However, there were notable deviations in the performance of PREVENT in the present study population compared with those reported in the or -Abstract Truncated-

Validating the PREVENT Equations for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment

Validation of American Heart Association PREVENT Cardiovascular Disease Risk Equations

External Validation of the American Heart Association PREVENT Cardiovascular Disease Risk Equations

Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimates Using the Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events Equations

Development and Validation of the American Heart Association's PREVENT Equations

Cardiovascular predicted risk: A population-based comparison of the pooled cohorts equation and PREVENT

Predicted Cardiovascular Risk by the PREVENT Equations in US Adults with Stage 1 Hypertension.

Projected Changes in Statin and Antihypertensive Therapy Eligibility With the AHA PREVENT Cardiovascular Risk Equations

Novel Prediction Equations for Absolute Risk Assessment of Total Cardiovascular Disease Incorporating Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Performance of the ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Cardiovascular Risk Equations in Clinical Practice

Tailoring Risk Prediction Models to Local Populations

Improving Cardiovascular Disease Primary Prevention Treatment Thresholds in a New England Health Care System

Performance of the Framingham risk models and pooled cohort equations for predicting 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PREVENT Equation: The Black Sheep among Cardiovascular Risk Scores? A Comparative Agreement Analysis of Nine Prediction Models in High-Risk Lithuanian Women

Risk Prediction for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease With and Without Race Stratification

Development and Validation of the CANHEART Population-Based Laboratory Prediction Models for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Performance of the Pooled Cohort Equations to Estimate Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk by Body Mass Index

Framingham and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations, High‐Sensitivity Troponin T, and N‐Terminal Pro–Brain‐Type Natriuretic Peptide for Predicting Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Events Across the Spectrum of Kidney Dysfunction

Prediction of cardiovascular risk in patients type 2 diabetes using the SCORE2-Diabetes risk score

Combining European Society of Cardiology and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association risk prediction model with polygenic risk scores to refine cardiovascular prevention

Validation and comparison of cardiovascular risk prediction equations in Chinese patients with Type 2 diabetes