Neither of which take any account of diabetic level of control and by what method or even which type. Massive assumptions being made there.
Yes you’re right re type, I’ve amended my comments.They do take account of whether the diabetes is T1 or T2, but nothing else.
The postcode seems to be based on the likely deprivation etc within that postcode as far as I can work out. My postcode comes out quite good, but not so some of the inner cities/large towns.
The smoking thing gives a slightly better result than the diabetes does. So they think it is better to smoke than have diabetes.
There's a discussion of the rationale behind QRISK2 here:- https://qrisk.org/2017/BMJ-QRISK2.pdf It says, 'A risk prediction algorithm that does not include deprivation ... is likely to result in the inequitable definition of risk for affluent and deprived communities. Primary prevention programmes that do not take these variables into account risk exacerbating rather than reducing existing health inequalities'.Neither of which take any account of diabetic level of control and by what method or even which type. Massive assumptions being made there.
Postcode affecting individual health?? Whilst current smokers are differentiated by quantity none for ex smokers (5 a day 30 yrs ago or 60 a day til last month have to be quite significantly different ?)
Interesting. In which case what is the relevance of postcode I wonder? (Haven’t read the article yet). And I don’t suppose a dr will run it without the diabetes label when trying to determine whether or not to prescribe statins to a diagnosed personThere's a discussion of the rationale behind QRISK2 here:- https://qrisk.org/2017/BMJ-QRISK2.pdf It says, 'A risk prediction algorithm that does not include deprivation ... is likely to result in the inequitable definition of risk for affluent and deprived communities. Primary prevention programmes that do not take these variables into account risk exacerbating rather than reducing existing health inequalities'.
If people think that their diabetes is so well-controlled that it's unlikely to affect their risk of heart disease, they could always re-run the calculator with 'no diabetes' selected for comparison. As the above article says, 'These estimates, like any predictive score, are an aid but not a replacement for judgment in individual clinical circumstances.'
The postcode will indicate if you live in a deprived area or an affluent area. You can run the QRISK calculator yourself and discuss the results with your GP. if/when the subject of statins is raised.what is the relevance of postcode I wonder
In this case, we're talking about primary prevention - the idea is to prevent heart disease in people who don't yet have it.Would it not be more sensible to actually test for heart disease rather than trying to predict it based on a hunch?
In this case, we're talking about primary prevention - the idea is to prevent heart disease in people who don't yet have it.
So exactly my point. They are using postcode to suggest (assumed) depravation or otherwise that your link deniedThe postcode will indicate if you live in a deprived area or an affluent area. You can run the QRISK calculator yourself and discuss the results with your GP. if/when the subject of statins is raised.
In this case, we're talking about primary prevention - the idea is to prevent heart disease in people who don't yet have it.
I think that the link was quite clear that it was using postcode as a proxy for deprivation.The article says, 'The only item in QRISK2 that is not already routinely collected and recorded electronically is the Townsend deprivation score, which is linked to an individual postcode. This score has already been integrated into the EMIS clinical system and linked to the records of over 32 million patients. The mapping of postcode to deprivation score will also be made available, together with the supporting reference tables and algorithm itself.' It also says that the variables used in the calculator include, 'Townsend deprivation score12 (output area level 2001 census data evaluated as a continuous variable)'.They are using postcode to suggest (assumed) depravation or otherwise that your link denied
I think the aim of risk calculators is to avoid exactly the sort of thing you suggest. Blanket targets for prescription such as 'everyone with diabetes' or 'everyone over the age of 40' would result in offering medication to people who don't need it - it would be much better to identify those people who are at higher risk. The QRISK calculator is under constant process of revision to improve accuracy and an updated calculator is released every year.Sure. I understand that. But it's a very poor predictor of anything at all, so its value in preventing heart disease is highly questionable. Maybe we should start prescribing Metformin to everyone over the age of thirty in order to prevent diabetes in those who don't yet have it
There's a discussion of the rationale behind QRISK2 here:- https://qrisk.org/2017/BMJ-QRISK2.pdf It says, 'A risk prediction algorithm that does not include deprivation ... is likely to result in the inequitable definition of risk for affluent and deprived communities. Primary prevention programmes that do not take these variables into account risk exacerbating rather than reducing existing health inequalities'.
If people think that their diabetes is so well-controlled that it's unlikely to affect their risk of heart disease, they could always re-run the calculator with 'no diabetes' selected for comparison. As the above article says, 'These estimates, like any predictive score, are an aid but not a replacement for judgment in individual clinical circumstances.'
In this case, we're talking about primary prevention - the idea is to prevent heart disease in people who don't yet have it.
I have been coded as diabetes in remission on my medical records by the GP. Yet it is still ticked on my Q-Risk score. However, it doesn't matter, because of my age, which on its own takes me to 13% without diabetes or any of the other health conditions boxes ticked but with an excellent BMI and ideal cholesterol and blood pressure. In other words, perfect health. I can't win. I cannot help my age!
I wonder what old meds she was talking about. IIRC, Atorvastatin was the first statin on the market. It’s hard to predict who will get side effects but usually the lower the dosage, the lower the risk of that.Hi there,
NEWLY DIAGNOSED LADA T1 on Humulin M3 (4 weeks after diagnosis)
My specialist nurse said today it would be recommended to start with low dose statin.
I said I’d been worried about going on them as I’d heard so many people saying side effects.
She replied saying the old meds used to give muscle aches and bad dreams but not the new drug, she’s only had one person not getting on with them.
My cholesterol level I think she said 5.3, not sure if that is very bad?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?