CONTEXT: Prior studies have demonstrated conflicting results regarding how much information novel biomarkers add to cardiovascular risk assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of contemporary biomarkers for predicting cardiovascular risk when added to conventional risk factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of 5067 participants (mean age, 58 years; 60% women) without cardiovascular disease from Malmö, Sweden, who attended a baseline examination between 1991 and 1994. Participants underwent measurement of C-reactive protein (CRP), cystatin C, lipoprotein-associated phospholipase 2, midregional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM), midregional proatrial natriuretic peptide, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (N-BNP) and underwent follow-up until 2006 using the Swedish national hospital discharge and cause-of-death registers and the Stroke in Malmö register for first cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary death). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident cardiovascular and coronary events. RESULTS: During median follow-up of 12.8 years, there were 418 cardiovascular and 230 coronary events. Models with conventional risk factors had C statistics of 0.758 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.734 to 0.781) and 0.760 (0.730 to 0.789) for cardiovascular and coronary events, respectively. Biomarkers retained in backward-elimination models were CRP and N-BNP for cardiovascular events and MR-proADM and N-BNP for coronary events, which increased the C statistic by 0.007 (P = .04) and 0.009 (P = .08), respectively. The proportion of participants reclassified was modest (8% for cardiovascular risk, 5% for coronary risk). Net reclassification improvement was nonsignificant for cardiovascular events (0.0%; 95% CI, -4.3% to 4.3%) and coronary events (4.7%; 95% CI, -0.76% to 10.1%). Greater improvements were observed in analyses restricted to intermediate-risk individuals (cardiovascular events: 7.4%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 14.1%; P = .03; coronary events: 14.6%; 95% CI, 5.0% to 24.2%; P = .003). However, correct reclassification was almost entirely confined to down-classification of individuals without events rather than up-classification of those with events. CONCLUSIONS: Selected biomarkers may be used to predict future cardiovascular events, but the gains over conventional risk factors are minimal. Risk classification improved in intermediate-risk individuals, mainly through the identification of those unlikely to develop events.
CONTEXT: Prior studies have demonstrated conflicting results regarding how much information novel biomarkers add to cardiovascular risk assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of contemporary biomarkers for predicting cardiovascular risk when added to conventional risk factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of 5067 participants (mean age, 58 years; 60% women) without cardiovascular disease from Malmö, Sweden, who attended a baseline examination between 1991 and 1994. Participants underwent measurement of C-reactive protein (CRP), cystatin C, lipoprotein-associated phospholipase 2, midregional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM), midregional proatrial natriuretic peptide, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (N-BNP) and underwent follow-up until 2006 using the Swedish national hospital discharge and cause-of-death registers and the Stroke in Malmö register for first cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary death). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident cardiovascular and coronary events. RESULTS: During median follow-up of 12.8 years, there were 418 cardiovascular and 230 coronary events. Models with conventional risk factors had C statistics of 0.758 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.734 to 0.781) and 0.760 (0.730 to 0.789) for cardiovascular and coronary events, respectively. Biomarkers retained in backward-elimination models were CRP and N-BNP for cardiovascular events and MR-proADM and N-BNP for coronary events, which increased the C statistic by 0.007 (P = .04) and 0.009 (P = .08), respectively. The proportion of participants reclassified was modest (8% for cardiovascular risk, 5% for coronary risk). Net reclassification improvement was nonsignificant for cardiovascular events (0.0%; 95% CI, -4.3% to 4.3%) and coronary events (4.7%; 95% CI, -0.76% to 10.1%). Greater improvements were observed in analyses restricted to intermediate-risk individuals (cardiovascular events: 7.4%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 14.1%; P = .03; coronary events: 14.6%; 95% CI, 5.0% to 24.2%; P = .003). However, correct reclassification was almost entirely confined to down-classification of individuals without events rather than up-classification of those with events. CONCLUSIONS: Selected biomarkers may be used to predict future cardiovascular events, but the gains over conventional risk factors are minimal. Risk classification improved in intermediate-risk individuals, mainly through the identification of those unlikely to develop events.
Authors: Michael G Shlipak; Mark J Sarnak; Ronit Katz; Linda F Fried; Stephen L Seliger; Anne B Newman; David S Siscovick; Catherine Stehman-Breen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-05-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael G Shlipak; Linda F Fried; Mary Cushman; Teri A Manolio; Do Peterson; Catherine Stehman-Breen; Anthony Bleyer; Anne Newman; David Siscovick; Bruce Psaty Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-04-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J R Downs; M Clearfield; S Weis; E Whitney; D R Shapiro; P A Beere; A Langendorfer; E A Stein; W Kruyer; A M Gotto Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-05-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Steven Rosenberg; Michael R Elashoff; Philip Beineke; Susan E Daniels; James A Wingrove; Whittemore G Tingley; Philip T Sager; Amy J Sehnert; May Yau; William E Kraus; L Kristin Newby; Robert S Schwartz; Szilard Voros; Stephen G Ellis; Naeem Tahirkheli; Ron Waksman; John McPherson; Alexandra Lansky; Mary E Winn; Nicholas J Schork; Eric J Topol Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Alberto Ortiz; Ziad A Massy; Danilo Fliser; Bengt Lindholm; Andrzej Wiecek; Alberto Martínez-Castelao; Adrian Covic; David Goldsmith; Gültekin Süleymanlar; Gérard M London; Carmine Zoccali Journal: Nat Rev Nephrol Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 28.314
Authors: Tochi M Okwuosa; Philip Greenland; Gregory L Burke; John Eng; Mary Cushman; Erin D Michos; Hongyan Ning; Donald M Lloyd-Jones Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-02
Authors: Andrea Ganna; Marie Reilly; Ulf de Faire; Nancy Pedersen; Patrik Magnusson; Erik Ingelsson Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Christopher R deFilippi; James A de Lemos; Robert H Christenson; John S Gottdiener; Willem J Kop; Min Zhan; Stephen L Seliger Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: D S Cross; C A McCarty; E Hytopoulos; M Beggs; N Nolan; D S Harrington; T Hastie; R Tibshirani; R P Tracy; B M Psaty; R McClelland; P S Tsao; T Quertermous Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.580