Background and objective: The therapeutic consequences of using the Framingham function calibrated by the REGICOR and Framingham investigators (Framingham-REGICOR) in the Spanish population are unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the differences in the classification of the population coronary risk when using the classical Framingham function (Framingham-Wilson) and that calibrated, and its consequences on the theoretical indication of lipid-lowering treatment.
Patients and method: The classification into the < 2%, 2-4,9%, 5-9,9%, 10-19,9%, 20-39,9%, and >= 40% risk categories observed by the two functions was compared in 3.270 individuals aged 35 to 74 years with no history of ischaemic heart disease or lipid-lowering drug treatment, recruited in two population samples representative of Girona between 1994 and 2001. The number of lipid-lowering treatment candidates was estimated applying the most recent guidelines for clinical practice, according to the risk level obtained with both functions.
Results: The proportion of patients excluded owing to the fact that they already were on lipid-lowering treatment was 6.2%. The Framingham-REGICOR assigned 54.2% of women and 67.9% of men to a lower level of risk as compared to the Framingham-Wilson function. In 0.2% of women and 21.2% of men the decrease was two categories of risk. The figures in diabetic participants were 75.7 and 18.5%, respectively. When the European recommendations published in 2003 were applied, lipid-lowering treatment would have been indicated in 14.5% and in 4.4% of non-diabetic participants by the Framingham-Wilson and the Framingham-REGICOR, respectively.
Conclusions: The calibrated Framingham-REGICOR function assigns a lower coronary risk category in more than 50% of women and almost 90% of men than the uncalibrated Framingham function. The calibrated function is more suitable for risk estimation in primary prevention than the original function in Spain.