Cited by 200Schizophrenia research and treatmentHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionCardiac Health and Mental Health

Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Models for People With Severe Mental Illness: Results From the Prediction and Management of Cardiovascular Risk in People With Severe Mental Illnesses (PRIMROSE) Research Program

Open access
Osborn, David P. J., Hardoon, Sarah, Omar, Rumana Z., Holt, Richard I. G., King, Michael, Larsen, John, Marston, Louise, Morris, Richard W. +3 more·2015·JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: People with severe mental illness (SMI), including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, have excess rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Risk prediction models validated for the general population may not accurately estimate cardiovascular risk in this group. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a risk model exclusive to predicting CVD events in people with SMI incorporating established cardiovascular risk factors and additional variables. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used anonymous/deidentified data collected between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2010, from the Health Improvement Network (THIN) to conduct a primary care, prospective cohort and risk score development study in the United Kingdom. Participants included 38,824 people with a diagnosis of SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or other nonorganic psychosis) aged 30 to 90 years. During a median follow-up of 5.6 years, 2324 CVD events (6.0%) occurred. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Ten-year risk of the first cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, cerebrovascular accidents, or major coronary surgery). Predictors included age, sex, height, weight, systolic blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, smoking, body mass index (BMI), lipid profile, social deprivation, SMI diagnosis, prescriptions for antidepressants and antipsychotics, and reports of heavy alcohol use. RESULTS: We developed 2 CVD risk prediction models for people with SMI: the PRIMROSE BMI model and the PRIMROSE lipid model. These models mutually excluded lipids and BMI. In terms of discrimination, from cross-validations for men, the PRIMROSE lipid model D statistic was 1.92 (95% CI, 1.80-2.03) and C statistic was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.83) compared with 1.74 (95% CI, 1.63-1.86) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.75-0.82) for published Cox Framingham risk scores. The corresponding results in women were 1.87 (95% CI, 1.76-1.98) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76-0.82) for the PRIMROSE lipid model and 1.58 (95% CI, 1.48-1.68) and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81) for the Cox Framingham model. Discrimination statistics for the PRIMROSE BMI model were comparable to those for the PRIMROSE lipid model. Calibration plots suggested that both PRIMROSE models were superior to the Cox Framingham models. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The PRIMROSE BMI and lipid CVD risk prediction models performed better in SMI compared with models that include only established CVD risk factors. Further work on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PRIMROSE models is needed to ascertain the best thresholds for offering CVD interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.2133

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Osborn, D. P. J., Hardoon, S., Omar, R. Z., Holt, R. I. G., King, M., Larsen, J., Marston, L., Morris, R. W., Nazareth, I., Walters, K., & Petersen, I.
Affiliations
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Rethink Mental Illness (GB)
Corresponding author
Osborn, David P. J.
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2015-02-01
Volume
72
Issue
2
Pages
143
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2008799821
Cited by
200
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 7
FWCI
10.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0611-10210, RP-PG-0609-10156)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
Keywords
cardiovascular risk prediction, severe mental illness, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, cardiovascular disease, body mass index, lipid profile, myocardial infarction, stroke, risk model validation, primary care cohort, social deprivation, antipsychotic use, alcohol consumption, diabetes mellitus, smoking, sex differences in cardiovascular risk, Health Improvement Network
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Bipolar Disorder, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Psychotic Disorders, Risk, Schizophrenia, Models, Statistical, Comorbidity, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review