Cardiovascular Risk Associated With Social Determinants of Health at Individual and Area Levels.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
IMPORTANCE: The benefit of adding social determinants of health (SDOH) when estimating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of SDOH at both individual and area levels with ASCVD risks, and to assess if adding individual- and area-level SDOH to the pooled cohort equations (PCEs) or the Predicting Risk of CVD Events (PREVENT) equations improves the accuracy of risk estimates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study included participants data from 4 large US cohort studies. Eligible participants were aged 40 to 79 years without a history of ASCVD. Baseline data were collected from 1995 to 2007; median (IQR) follow-up was 13.0 (9.3-15.0) years. Data were analyzed from September 2023 to February 2024. EXPOSURES: Individual- and area-level education, income, and employment status. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: ASCVD was defined as the composite outcome of nonfatal myocardial infarction, death from coronary heart disease, and fatal or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: A total of 26 316 participants were included (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [9.1] years; 15 494 women [58.9%]; 11 365 Black [43.2%], 703 Chinese American [2.7%], 1278 Hispanic [4.9%], and 12 970 White [49.3%]); 11 764 individuals (44.7%) had at least 1 adverse individual-level SDOH and 10 908 (41.5%) had at least 1 adverse area-level SDOH. A total of 2673 ASCVD events occurred during follow-up. SDOH were associated with increased risk of ASCVD at both the individual and area levels, including for low education (individual: hazard ratio [HR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.25-1.55]; area: HR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.20-1.42]), low income (individual: 1.35 [95% CI, 1.25-1.47]; area: HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.17-1.40]), and unemployment (individual: HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.24-2.10]; area: HR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.14-1.37]). Adding area-level SDOH alone to the PCEs did not change model discrimination but modestly improved calibration. Furthermore, adding both individual- and area-level SDOH to the PCEs led to a modest improvement in both discrimination and calibration in non-Hispanic Black individuals (change in C index, 0.0051 [95% CI, 0.0011 to 0.0126]; change in scaled integrated Brier score [IBS], 0.396% [95% CI, 0.221% to 0.802%]), and improvement in calibration in White individuals (change in scaled IBS, 0.274% [95% CI, 0.095% to 0.665%]). Adding individual-level SDOH to the PREVENT plus area-level social deprivation index (SDI) equations did not improve discrimination but modestly improved calibration in White participants (change in scaled IBS, 0.182% [95% CI, 0.040% to 0.496%]), Black participants (0.187% [95% CI, 0.039% to 0.501%]), and women (0.289% [95% CI, 0.115% to 0.574%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, both individual- and area-level SDOH were associated with ASCVD risk; adding both individual- and area-level SDOH to the PCEs modestly improved discrimination and calibration for estimating ASCVD risk for Black individuals, and adding individual-level SDOH to PREVENT plus SDI also modestly improved calibration. These findings suggest that both individual- and area-level SDOH may be considered in future development of ASCVD risk assessment tools, particularly among Black individuals.
