Agreement between the laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based WHO cardiovascular risk charts: a cross-sectional analysis of a national health survey in Peru

ObjectiveTo determine the agreement between the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk predictions computed with the WHO non-laboratory-based model and laboratory-based model in a nationally representative sample of Peruvian adults.DesignCross-sectional analysis of a national health survey.MethodsAbsolute CVD risk was computed with the 2019 WHO laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based models. The risk predictions from both models were compared with Bland-Altman plots, Lin’s concordance coefficient correlation (LCCC), and kappa statistics, stratified by sex, age, body mass index categories, smoking and diabetes status.Results663 people aged 30–59 years were included in the analysis. Overall, there were no substantial differences between the mean CVD risk computed with the laboratory-based model 2.0% (95% CI 1.8% to 2.2%) and the non-laboratory-based model 2.0% (95% CI 1.8% to 2.1%). In the Bland-Altman plots, the limits of agreement were the widest among people with diabetes (−0.21; 4.37) compared with people without diabetes (−1.17; 0.95). The lowest agreement as per the LCCC was also seen in people with diabetes (0.74 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.82)), the same was observed with the kappa statistic (kappa=0.36). In general, agreement between the scores was appropriate in terms of clinical significance.ConclusionsThe absolute cardiovascular predicted risk was similar between the laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based 2019 WHO cardiovascular risk models. Pending validation from longitudinal studies, the non-laboratory-based model (instead of the laboratory-based) could be used when assessing CVD risk in Peruvian population.