BACKGROUND: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) levels are associated with risk for heart failure (HF). The soluble TNF type 1 (sTNF-R1) and type 2 (sTNF-R2) receptors are elevated in patients with manifest HF, but whether they are associated with risk for incident HF is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Cox proportional hazard models, we examined the association between baseline levels of sTNF-R1 and sTNF-R2 with incident HF risk among 1285 participants of the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study (age, 74.0±2.9 years; 51.4% women; 41.1% black). At baseline, median (interquartile range) of TNF, sTNF-R1, and sTNF-R2 levels was 3.14 (2.42-4.06), 1.46 (1.25-1.76), and 3.43 (2.95-4.02) ng/mL, respectively. During a median follow-up of 11.4 (6.9-11.7) years, 233 (18.1%) participants developed HF. In models controlling for other HF risk factors, TNF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.61 per log2 increase) and sTNF-R1 (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.15-2.46 per log2 increase), but not sTNF-R2 (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.80-1.63 per log2 increase), were associated with a higher risk for HF. These associations were consistent across whites and blacks (TNF, sTNF-R1, sTNF-R2; interaction P=0.531, 0.091, and 0.795, respectively) and in both sexes (TNF, sTNF-R1, sTNF-R2; interaction P=0.491, 0.672, and 0.999, respectively). TNF-R1 was associated with a higher risk for HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.03-3.18; P=0.038 for preserved versus HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.56-1.44; P=0.667 for reduced ejection fraction; interaction P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In older adults, elevated levels of sTNF-R1 are associated with increased risk for incident HF. However, addition of TNF-R1 to the previously validated Health ABC HF risk model did not demonstrate material improvement in net discrimination or reclassification.
BACKGROUND:Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) levels are associated with risk for heart failure (HF). The soluble TNF type 1 (sTNF-R1) and type 2 (sTNF-R2) receptors are elevated in patients with manifest HF, but whether they are associated with risk for incident HF is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Cox proportional hazard models, we examined the association between baseline levels of sTNF-R1 and sTNF-R2 with incident HF risk among 1285 participants of the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study (age, 74.0±2.9 years; 51.4% women; 41.1% black). At baseline, median (interquartile range) of TNF, sTNF-R1, and sTNF-R2 levels was 3.14 (2.42-4.06), 1.46 (1.25-1.76), and 3.43 (2.95-4.02) ng/mL, respectively. During a median follow-up of 11.4 (6.9-11.7) years, 233 (18.1%) participants developed HF. In models controlling for other HF risk factors, TNF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.61 per log2 increase) and sTNF-R1 (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.15-2.46 per log2 increase), but not sTNF-R2 (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.80-1.63 per log2 increase), were associated with a higher risk for HF. These associations were consistent across whites and blacks (TNF, sTNF-R1, sTNF-R2; interaction P=0.531, 0.091, and 0.795, respectively) and in both sexes (TNF, sTNF-R1, sTNF-R2; interaction P=0.491, 0.672, and 0.999, respectively). TNF-R1 was associated with a higher risk for HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.03-3.18; P=0.038 for preserved versus HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.56-1.44; P=0.667 for reduced ejection fraction; interaction P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In older adults, elevated levels of sTNF-R1 are associated with increased risk for incident HF. However, addition of TNF-R1 to the previously validated Health ABC HF risk model did not demonstrate material improvement in net discrimination or reclassification.
Authors: Sofie P M Janssen; Ghislaine Gayan-Ramirez; An Van den Bergh; Paul Herijgers; Karen Maes; Erik Verbeken; Marc Decramer Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-02-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: B Bozkurt; S B Kribbs; F J Clubb; L H Michael; V V Didenko; P J Hornsby; Y Seta; H Oral; F G Spinale; D L Mann Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-04-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: D Bryant; L Becker; J Richardson; J Shelton; F Franco; R Peshock; M Thompson; B Giroir Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-04-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Z Dibbs; K Kurrelmeyer; D Kalra; Y Seta; F Wang; B Bozkurt; G Baumgarten; N Sivasubramanian; D L Mann Journal: Proc Assoc Am Physicians Date: 1999 Sep-Oct
Authors: Dianhong Luo; Yan Luo; Yun He; Haifeng Zhang; Rong Zhang; Xianghong Li; Wawrzyniec L Dobrucki; Al J Sinusas; William C Sessa; Wang Min Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Hossein Bahrami; David A Bluemke; Richard Kronmal; Alain G Bertoni; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Eyal Shahar; Moyses Szklo; João A C Lima Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kati H Miettinen; Johan Lassus; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Krista Siirilä-Waris; John Melin; Kari R Punnonen; Markku S Nieminen; Markku Laakso; Keijo J Peuhkurinen Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2008-03-19 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Todd M Manini; Stephen D Anton; Daniel P Beavers; Jane A Cauley; Mark A Espeland; Roger A Fielding; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Christiaan Leeuwenburgh; Kristina H Lewis; Christine Liu; Mary M McDermott; Michael E Miller; Russell P Tracy; Jeremy D Walston; Barbara Radziszewska; Jane Lu; Cindy Stowe; Samuel Wu; Anne B Newman; Walter T Ambrosius; Marco Pahor Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-07-22 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ashbeel Roy; Mouhamed Dakroub; Geisa C S V Tezini; Yin Liu; Silvia Guatimosim; Qingping Feng; Helio C Salgado; Vania F Prado; Marco A M Prado; Robert Gros Journal: FASEB J Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Gabrielle A Langmann; Subashan Perera; Mary A Ferchak; David A Nace; Neil M Resnick; Susan L Greenspan Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Brendan N Putko; Zuocheng Wang; Jennifer Lo; Todd Anderson; Harald Becher; Jason R B Dyck; Zamaneh Kassiri; Gavin Y Oudit Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 3.240