Framingham Category Risk Score
Framingham Category Risk Score
Framingham Category Risk Score
STEP 1: Add scores by sex for Age, Total Cholesterol, HDL-Cholesterol, BP, Diabetes and Smoking. (If HDL unknown, assume 1.1 in Males, 1.4 in Females)
Age Total Cholesterol HDL Cholesterol Systolic BP Diastolic BP Diabetes M F Smoking M F
M F M F M F M ale <80 80-84 85-89 90-99 ≥ 100 No 0 0 No 0 0
30-34 -1 -9 < 4.1 -3 -2 < 0.9 2 5 <120 0 0 1 2 3 Yes 2 4 Yes 2 2
35-39 0 -4 4.1 – 5.1 0 0 0.9 - 1.16 1 2 120-129 0 0 1 2 3
40-44 1 0 5.2 – 6.2 1 1 1.17 - 1.29 0 1 130-139 1 1 1 2 3
45-49 2 3 6.3 – 7.1 2 1 1.30 - 1.55 0 0 140-159 2 2 2 2 3
50-54 3 6 ≥ 7.2 3 3 ≥ 1.56 -2 -3 ≥ 160 3 3 3 3 3
55-59 4 7 Female <80 80-84 85-89 90-99 ≥ 100 Categorisation of 10 year Risk
60-64 5 8 <120 -3 0 0 2 3 of CHD Event
STEP 2: Use total score to determine Predicted 10 year Absolute Risk of CHD Event (Coronary Death, Myocardial Infarction, Angina) by sex
Total Score ≤-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 ≥17
10 year Risk: Male <2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 7% 8% 10% 13% 16% 20% 25% 31% 37% 45% ≥53% ≥53% ≥53% ≥53%
10 year Risk: Female <1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 10% 11% 13% 15% 18% 20% 24% ≥27%
STEP 3: Compare Predicted 10 year Absolute Risk with "Average" and "Ideal" 10 year Risks, to give Relative Risks
Age 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65 - 69 70 - 74 "Ideal" risk represents
"Average" Male 3% 5% 7% 11% 14% 16% 21% 25% 30% Total Cholesterol = 4.1 - 5.1
"Ideal" Male 2% 3% 4% 4% 6% 7% 9% 11% 14% HDL = 1.2 (Male), 1.4 (Female)
"Average" Female < 1% < 1% 2% 5% 8% 12% 12% 13% 14% BP < 120/80
"Ideal" Female < 1% 1% 2% 3% 5% 7% 8% 8% 8% No Diabetes, Non Smoker
People with an absolute risk of ≥30% should be considered for treatment: with a Statin to achieve a Total Cholesterol <5 and/or LDL cholesterol <3
People with an absolute risk of ≥15% should be considered for treatment with anti-hypertensives to achieve a BP ideally ≤140/90
from Wilson PWF, et al Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 1998;97:1837-47 Dr John Bayliss Feb 2001