BACKGROUND: Risk prediction is an integral part of the current US guidelines for cardiovascular disease in women. Although current risk prediction algorithms exist to identify women at increased 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), clinicians and researchers have been interested in developing novel biomarkers that might improve predictive accuracy further. These biomarkers have led to important insights into the pathophysiology of CVD, but results for their ability to improve prediction or guide preventive therapy have been mixed. The incidence of CVD is lower in women than men, and the effects of a number of traditional biomarkers on CVD risk differ in women compared to men. Both of these factors influence the ability to accurately predict CVD risk. CONTENT: We review the distinctive aspects of CVD risk prediction in women, discuss the statistical challenges to improved risk prediction, and discuss a number of biomarkers in varying stages of development with a range of performance in prediction. SUMMARY: A variety of biomarkers from different pathophysiologic pathways have been evaluated for improving CVD risk. While many have been incompletely studied or have not been shown to improve risk prediction in women, others, such as high-sensitivity troponin T, have shown promise in improving risk prediction. Increasing inclusion of women in CVD studies will be crucial to providing opportunities to evaluate future biomarkers.
BACKGROUND: Risk prediction is an integral part of the current US guidelines for cardiovascular disease in women. Although current risk prediction algorithms exist to identify women at increased 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), clinicians and researchers have been interested in developing novel biomarkers that might improve predictive accuracy further. These biomarkers have led to important insights into the pathophysiology of CVD, but results for their ability to improve prediction or guide preventive therapy have been mixed. The incidence of CVD is lower in women than men, and the effects of a number of traditional biomarkers on CVD risk differ in women compared to men. Both of these factors influence the ability to accurately predict CVD risk. CONTENT: We review the distinctive aspects of CVD risk prediction in women, discuss the statistical challenges to improved risk prediction, and discuss a number of biomarkers in varying stages of development with a range of performance in prediction. SUMMARY: A variety of biomarkers from different pathophysiologic pathways have been evaluated for improving CVD risk. While many have been incompletely studied or have not been shown to improve risk prediction in women, others, such as high-sensitivity troponin T, have shown promise in improving risk prediction. Increasing inclusion of women in CVD studies will be crucial to providing opportunities to evaluate future biomarkers.
Authors: Thomas J Wang; Martin G Larson; Daniel Levy; Eric P Leip; Emelia J Benjamin; Peter W F Wilson; Patrice Sutherland; Torbjorn Omland; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Sonia Shah; Juan P Casas; Tom R Gaunt; Jackie Cooper; Fotios Drenos; Delilah Zabaneh; Daniel I Swerdlow; Tina Shah; Reecha Sofat; Jutta Palmen; Meena Kumari; Mika Kivimaki; Shah Ebrahim; George Davey Smith; Debbie A Lawlor; Philippa J Talmud; John Whittaker; Ian N M Day; Aroon D Hingorani; Steve E Humphries Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Justin T Saunders; Vijay Nambi; James A de Lemos; Lloyd E Chambless; Salim S Virani; Eric Boerwinkle; Ron C Hoogeveen; Xiaoxi Liu; Brad C Astor; Thomas H Mosley; Aaron R Folsom; Gerardo Heiss; Josef Coresh; Christie M Ballantyne Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lori Mosca; Emelia J Benjamin; Kathy Berra; Judy L Bezanson; Rowena J Dolor; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; L Kristin Newby; Ileana L Piña; Véronique L Roger; Leslee J Shaw; Dong Zhao; Theresa M Beckie; Cheryl Bushnell; Jeanine D'Armiento; Penny M Kris-Etherton; Jing Fang; Theodore G Ganiats; Antoinette S Gomes; Clarisa R Gracia; Constance K Haan; Elizabeth A Jackson; Debra R Judelson; Ellie Kelepouris; Carl J Lavie; Anne Moore; Nancy A Nussmeier; Elizabeth Ofili; Suzanne Oparil; Pamela Ouyang; Vivian W Pinn; Katherine Sherif; Sidney C Smith; George Sopko; Nisha Chandra-Strobos; Elaine M Urbina; Viola Vaccarino; Nanette K Wenger Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Alan S Maisel; Padma Krishnaswamy; Richard M Nowak; James McCord; Judd E Hollander; Philippe Duc; Torbjørn Omland; Alan B Storrow; William T Abraham; Alan H B Wu; Paul Clopton; Philippe G Steg; Arne Westheim; Catherine Wold Knudsen; Alberto Perez; Radmila Kazanegra; Howard C Herrmann; Peter A McCullough Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-07-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Margaret M Redfield; Richard J Rodeheffer; Steven J Jacobsen; Douglas W Mahoney; Kent R Bailey; John C Burnett Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-09-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Brendan M Everett; Jeffrey S Berger; JoAnn E Manson; Paul M Ridker; Nancy R Cook Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Iftach Shaked; David B Hanna; Christian Gleißner; Brenda Marsh; Jill Plants; Daniel Tracy; Kathryn Anastos; Mardge Cohen; Elizabeth T Golub; Roksana Karim; Jason Lazar; Vinayaka Prasad; Phyllis C Tien; Mary A Young; Alan L Landay; Robert C Kaplan; Klaus Ley Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Eva Johansson; Abrar Hussain; Ramune Kuktaite; Staffan C Andersson; Marie E Olsson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2014-04-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Stanislaw P Stawicki; Jill C Stoltzfus; Praveen Aggarwal; Sanjeev Bhoi; Shashi Bhatt; O P Kalra; Ashish Bhalla; Brian A Hoey; Sagar C Galwankar; Lorenzo Paladino; Thomas J Papadimos Journal: Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci Date: 2014-07