OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate whether multiple biomarkers contribute to improved coronary heart disease (CHD) risk prediction in post-menopausal women compared with assessment using traditional risk factors (TRFs) only. BACKGROUND: The utility of newer biomarkers remains uncertain when added to predictive models using only TRFs for CHD risk assessment. METHODS: The Women's Health Initiative Hormone Trials enrolled 27,347 post-menopausal women ages 50 to 79 years. Associations of TRFs and 18 biomarkers were assessed in a nested case-control study including 321 patients with CHD and 743 controls. Four prediction equations for 5-year CHD risk were compared: 2 Framingham risk score covariate models; a TRF model including statin treatment, hormone treatment, and cardiovascular disease history as well as the Framingham risk score covariates; and an additional biomarker model that additionally included the 5 significantly associated markers of the 18 tested (interleukin-6, d-dimer, coagulation factor VIII, von Willebrand factor, and homocysteine). RESULTS: The TRF model showed an improved C-statistic (0.729 vs. 0.699, p = 0.001) and net reclassification improvement (6.42%) compared with the Framingham risk score model. The additional biomarker model showed additional improvement in the C-statistic (0.751 vs. 0.729, p = 0.001) and net reclassification improvement (6.45%) compared with the TRF model. Predicted CHD risks on a continuous scale showed high agreement between the TRF and additional biomarker models (Spearman's coefficient = 0.918). Among the 18 biomarkers measured, C-reactive protein level did not significantly improve CHD prediction either alone or in combination with other biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate improvement in CHD risk prediction was found when an 18-biomarker panel was added to predictive models using TRFs in post-menopausal women. Copyright 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate whether multiple biomarkers contribute to improved coronary heart disease (CHD) risk prediction in post-menopausal women compared with assessment using traditional risk factors (TRFs) only. BACKGROUND: The utility of newer biomarkers remains uncertain when added to predictive models using only TRFs for CHD risk assessment. METHODS: The Women's Health Initiative Hormone Trials enrolled 27,347 post-menopausal women ages 50 to 79 years. Associations of TRFs and 18 biomarkers were assessed in a nested case-control study including 321 patients with CHD and 743 controls. Four prediction equations for 5-year CHD risk were compared: 2 Framingham risk score covariate models; a TRF model including statin treatment, hormone treatment, and cardiovascular disease history as well as the Framingham risk score covariates; and an additional biomarker model that additionally included the 5 significantly associated markers of the 18 tested (interleukin-6, d-dimer, coagulation factor VIII, von Willebrand factor, and homocysteine). RESULTS: The TRF model showed an improved C-statistic (0.729 vs. 0.699, p = 0.001) and net reclassification improvement (6.42%) compared with the Framingham risk score model. The additional biomarker model showed additional improvement in the C-statistic (0.751 vs. 0.729, p = 0.001) and net reclassification improvement (6.45%) compared with the TRF model. Predicted CHD risks on a continuous scale showed high agreement between the TRF and additional biomarker models (Spearman's coefficient = 0.918). Among the 18 biomarkers measured, C-reactive protein level did not significantly improve CHD prediction either alone or in combination with other biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate improvement in CHD risk prediction was found when an 18-biomarker panel was added to predictive models using TRFs in post-menopausal women. Copyright 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
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: Ervin R Fox; Tandaw E Samdarshi; Solomon K Musani; Michael J Pencina; Jung Hye Sung; Alain G Bertoni; Vanessa Xanthakis; Pelbreton C Balfour; Satya S Shreenivas; Carolyn Covington; Philip R Liebson; Daniel F Sarpong; Kenneth R Butler; Thomas H Mosley; Wayne D Rosamond; Aaron R Folsom; David M Herrington; Ramachandran S Vasan; Herman A Taylor Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Robert A Wild; Chunyuan Wu; J D Curb; Lisa W Martin; Lawrence Phillips; Marcia Stefanick; Maurizio Trevisan; Joann E Manson Journal: Menopause Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Constantin von zur Muhlen; Eric Schiffer; Christine Sackmann; Petra Zürbig; Irene Neudorfer; Andreas Zirlik; Nay Htun; Alexander Iphöfer; Lothar Jänsch; Harald Mischak; Christoph Bode; Yung C Chen; Karlheinz Peter Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2012-02-27 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Thomas J Wang; Kai C Wollert; Martin G Larson; Erin Coglianese; Elizabeth L McCabe; Susan Cheng; Jennifer E Ho; Michael G Fradley; Anahita Ghorbani; Vanessa Xanthakis; Tibor Kempf; Emelia J Benjamin; Daniel Levy; Ramachandran S Vasan; James L Januzzi Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Marcel Roos; Dimitrios Oikonomou; Maximilian von Eynatten; Peter B Luppa; Uwe Heemann; Jens Lutz; Marcus Baumann; Peter P Nawroth; Angelika Bierhaus; Per M Humpert Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: Bas C T van Bussel; Isabel Ferreira; Marjo P H van de Waarenburg; Marleen M J van Greevenbroek; Carla J H van der Kallen; Ronald M A Henry; Edith J M Feskens; Coen D A Stehouwer; Casper G Schalkwijk Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 3.240