QRISK3

[LionChild]

Has anyone on here done the QRisk3 test on line? It is meant to indicate what your cardiovascular risk is as a percentage. On this form, it does ask if you are a type 1, and I find that if I untype that my risk comes down to what would be normal for my age of 73. If I do tick it, my risk goes up to the age of an 83 year old! Yet my BG is well controlled and always around 40. It has never been more than 43 since my diagnosis. I am on a low carb diet. What I find odd is that this does not even ask for your A1C. Surely if your blood glucose is well managed, that risk level as indicated on this form, should drop dramatically? Yet the form does not allow for that information to be inserted.

According to this test, my risk is around 39% of a cardiovascular event in the next ten years. And, this high level of risk is clearly because I am a type 1 diabetic. As I say, this does not take into account the level of BG control. Any thoughts on this anyone?

 

[Rachox]

I’ve used Q Risk 3 and yes it does the same for type 2 diabetics. At least Q Risk 3 asks for more info that Q Risk 2 did. My diabetes diagnosis adds 10% to my score. Even adding my post code increases my risk by 1%!
I agree a further improvement would be to add HbA1c score, after all it lets you add your latest BP.

 

[SimonP78]

I've posted my thoughts in the past on the massive change the single tickbox makes, when I was looking at the data that goes into it, I remarked that the number of T1 diabetics is very small in comparison to the T2 diabetics, and that it lumps everyone together irrespective of control. Re control, the average HbA1c for diabetics in the UK is not very good, so adding those two things together I'm not at all convinced that it (the tickbox) is a useful feature on anything but a population scale.

 

[Rachox]

I remarked that the number of T1 diabetics is very small in comparison to the T2 diabetics, and that it lumps everyone together irrespective of control

With Q Risk 3 you need to choose between non diabetic, type 1 diabetic or type 2. The three different choices give three different scores, so us diabetics aren’t “lumped in together”.

 

[LionChild]

I've posted my thoughts in the past on the massive change the single tickbox makes, when I was looking at the data that goes into it, I remarked that the number of T1 diabetics is very small in comparison to the T2 diabetics, and that it lumps everyone together irrespective of control. Re control, the average HbA1c for diabetics in the UK is not very good, so adding those two things together I'm not at all convinced that it (the tickbox) is a useful feature on anything but a population scale.

It's the A1C that is missing and should be included in this assessment.

 

[SimonP78]

With Q Risk 3 you need to choose between non diabetic, type 1 diabetic or type 2. The three different choices give three different scores, so us diabetics aren’t “lumped in together”.

Ah, interesting they've separated the two (and good news). I'm doubtful they've significantly increased the size of the cohort though. Do you know, out of interest, what factor they apply for T1 vs T2 in the equation?

I think the point stands about whether the cohort is representative though, I'll have to have another look at references and the factors they apply.

Thanks for pointing it out

 

[Rachox]

Do you know, out of interest, what factor they apply for T1 vs T2 in the equation?

I’ve just put my details in and selected non diabetic, type 2 then type 1 in turn. My results were as follows:
Non d = 8.3%
Type 2 = 15.6%
Type 1 = 24.3%
Here’s a link to the site so you could do the same with your info. if you’d like to.

QRISK3

qrisk.org