Assessing cardiovascular disease risk and social determinants of health: A comparative analysis of five risk estimation instruments using data from the Eastern Caribbean Health Outcomes Research Network

Abstract

Background Accurate assessment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is crucial for effective prevention and resource allocation. However, few CVD risk estimation tools consider social determinants of health (SDoH), despite their known impact on CVD risk. We aimed to estimate 10-year CVD risk in the Eastern Caribbean Health Outcomes Research Network Cohort Study (ECS) across multiple risk estimation instruments and assess the association between SDoH and CVD risk. Methods Five widely used CVD risk estimation tools (Framingham and WHO laboratory, both laboratory and non-laboratory-based, and ASCVD) were applied using data from ECS participants aged 40–74 without a history of CVD. SDoH variables included educational attainment, occupational status, household food security, and perceived social status. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare differences in the association between selected SDoH and high CVD risk according to the five instruments. Findings Among 1,777 adult participants, estimated 10-year CVD risk varied substantially across tools. Framingham non-lab and ASCVD demonstrated strong agreement in categorizing participants as high risk. Framingham non-lab categorized the greatest percentage as high risk, followed by Framingham lab, ASCVD, WHO lab, and WHO non-lab. Fifteen times more people were classified as high risk by Framingham non-lab compared with WHO non-lab (31% vs 2%). Mean estimated 10-year risk in the sample was over 2.5 times higher using Framingham non-lab vs WHO non-lab (17.3% vs 6.6%). We found associations between food insecurity, those with the lowest level compared to the highest level of education, and non-professional occupation and increased estimated CVD risk. Interpretation Our findings highlight significant discrepancies in CVD risk estimation across tools and underscore the potential impact of incorporating SDoH into risk assessment. Further research is needed to validate and refine existing risk tools, particularly in ethnically diverse populations and resource-constrained settings, and to develop race- and ethnicity-free risk estimation models that consider SDoH.