Validation of the World Health Organization/ International Society of Hypertension (WHO/ISH) cardiovascular risk predictions in Sri Lankans based on findings from a prospective cohort study

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk among Ghanaians: A comparison of the risk assessment tools

Objectives

Risk stratification is a cornerstone for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Ghana has yet to develop a locally derived and validated ASCVD risk model. A critical first step towards this goal is assessing how the commonly available risk models perform in the Ghanaian population. This study compares the agreement and correlation between four ASCVD risk assessment models commonly used in Ghana.

Methods

The Ghana Heart Study collected data from four regions in Ghana (Ashanti, Greater Accra, Northern, and Central regions) and excluded people with a self-declared history of ASCVD. The 10-year fatal/non-fatal ASCVD risk of participants aged 40-74 was calculated using mobile-based apps for Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE), laboratory-based WHO/ISH CVD risk, laboratory-based Framingham risk (FRS), and Globorisk, categorizing them as low, intermediate, or high risk. The risk categories were compared using the Kappa statistic and Spearman correlation.

Results

A total of 615 participants were included in this analysis (median age 55 [Inter quartile range 46, 64]) years with 365 (59.3 %) females. The WHO/ISH risk score categorized 504 (82.0 %), 58 (9.4 %), and 53 (8.6 %) as low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively. The PCE categorized 345 (56.1 %), 181 (29.4 %), and 89 (14.5 %) as low-, intermediate- and high-risk, respectively. The Globorisk categorized 236 (38.4 %), 273 (44.4 %), and 106 (17.2 %) as low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively. Significant differences in the risk categorization by region of residence and age group were noted. There was substantial agreement between the PCE vs FRS (Kappa = 0.8, 95 % CI 0.7 - 0.8), PCE vs Globorisk (Kappa = 0.6; 95 % CI 0.6 - 0.7), and FRS vs Globorisk (Kappa = 0.6; 95 % CI 0.6 - 0.7). However, there was only fair agreement between the WHO vs Globorisk (Kappa = 0.3; 95 % CI 0.3-0.4) and moderate agreement between the WHO vs PCE and WHO vs FRS.

Conclusion

There are significant differences in the ASCVD risk prediction tools in the Ghanaian population, posing a threat to primary prevention. Therefore, there is a need for locally derived and validated tools.

Identification and Management of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk in South Asian Populations in the U.S

South Asians (SAs, individuals with ancestry from Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) are among the fastest growing ethnic subgroups in the United States. SAs typically experience a high prevalence of diabetes, abdominal obesity, and hypertension, among other cardiovascular disease risk factors, which are often under recognized and undermanaged. The excess coronary heart disease risk in this growing population must be critically assessed and managed with culturally appropriate preventive services. Accordingly, this scientific document prepared by a multidisciplinary group of clinicians and investigators in cardiology, internal medicine, pharmacy, and SA-centric researchers describes key characteristics of traditional and nontraditional cardiovascular disease risk factors, compares and contrasts available risk assessment tools, discusses the role of blood-based biomarkers and coronary artery calcium to enhance risk assessment and prevention strategies, and provides evidenced-based approaches and interventions that may reduce coronary heart disease disparities in this higher-risk population.

Cardiovascular disease risk profile and management among people 40 years of age and above in Bo, Sierra Leone: A cross-sectional study

Introduction

Access to care for cardiovascular disease risk factors (CVDRFs) in low- and middle-income countries is limited. We aimed to describe the need and access to care for people with CVDRF and the preparedness of the health system to treat these in Bo, Sierra Leone.

Methods

Data from a 2018 household survey conducted in Bo, Sierra Leone, was analysed. Demographic, anthropometric and clinical data on CVDRF (hypertension, diabetes mellitus or dyslipidaemia) from randomly sampled individuals 40 years of age and above were collected. Future risk of CVD was calculated using the World Health Organisation–International Society of Hypertension (WHO-ISH) calculator with high risk defined as >20% risk over 10 years. Requirement for treatment was based on WHO package of essential non-communicable (PEN) disease guidelines (which use a risk-based approach) or requiring treatment for individual CVDRF; whether participants were on treatment was used to determine whether care needs were met. Multivariable regression was used to test associations between individual characteristics and outcomes. Data from the most recent WHO Service Availability and Readiness Assessment (SARA) were used to create a score reflecting health system preparedness to treat CVDRF, and compared to that for HIV.

Results

2071 individual participants were included. Most participants (n = 1715 [94.0%]) had low CVD risk; 423 (20.6%) and 431 (52.3%) required treatment based upon WHO PEN guidelines or individual CVDRF, respectively. Sixty-eight (15.8%) had met-need for treatment determined by WHO guidelines, whilst 84 (19.3%) for individual CVDRF. Living in urban areas, having education, being older, single/widowed/divorced, or wealthy were independently associated with met need. Overall facility readiness scores for CVD/CVDRF care for all facilities in Bo district was 16.8%, compared to 41% for HIV.

Conclusion

The number of people who require treatment for CVDRF in Sierra Leone is substantially lower based on WHO guidelines compared to CVDRF. CVDRF care needs are not met equitably, and facility readiness to provide care is low.