Chronological age has traditionally been a key component in patient risk assessment, as age-related diseases are, as expected, related to a person’s age. However, new developments in the measurement of biological age, such as epigenetic clocks, are challenging the use of chronological age. Biological age better reflects the likelihood of age-related diseases and can vary significantly from chronological age due to lifestyle factors and exposure to environmental stressors.
This raises questions about the effectiveness of using chronological age for patient risk assessment. As people age at different rates, it may not accurately reflect an individual’s risk. This has implications for cardiovascular risk assessment, as the Pooled Cohort Equation heavily weights chronological age in its calculations. New measures, such as genetic biomarkers and markers of vascular health, offer more personalized and accurate ways to assess biological age and cardiovascular risk.
It is clear that chronological age may not be the best indicator for patient risk assessment, and alternative measures of biological age offer more personalized insights. As we continue to advance our understanding of aging and age-related diseases, it’s important to reevaluate the tools and metrics we use for risk assessment to ensure they accurately reflect an individual’s health and potential for disease.
