Joseph Yeboah1, Raimund Erbel2, Joseph Chris Delaney3, Robin Nance3, Mengye Guo3, Alain G Bertoni4, Matthew Budoff5, Susanne Moebus6, Karl-Heinz Jöckel6, Gregory L Burke4, Nathan D Wong7, Nils Lehmann2, David M Herrington8, Stefan Möhlenkamp9, Philip Greenland10. 1. Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. Electronic address: jyeboah@wakehealth.edu. 2. Department of Cardiology, West-German Heart Center Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 5. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Center, Torrance, CA, USA. 6. Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry, and Epidemiology, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany. 7. Heart Disease Prevention Program, Division of Cardiology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA. 8. Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 9. Clinic of Cardiology, Bethanien Hospital Moers, Germany. 10. Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We develop a new diabetes CHD risk estimator using traditional risk factors plus coronary artery calcium (CAC), ankle-brachial index (ABI), high sensitivity C-reactive protein, family history of CHD, and carotid intima-media thickness and compared it with United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes study (UKPDS), Framingham risk and the NCEP/ATP III risk scores in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS AND RESULTS: We combined data from T2DM without clinical CVD in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study (N = 1343). After a mean follow-up of 8.5 years, 85 (6.3%) participants had incident CHD. Among the novel risk markers, CAC best predicted CHD independent of the FRS [hazard ratio: HR (95% CI): log (CAC +25):1.69 (1.45-1.97), p < 0.0001; CAC categories: CAC ≤ 25 as reference, >25 and ≤125:2.29 (0.87-5.95), >125 and ≤400: 3.87 (1.57-9.57), >400: 5.97 (2.57-13.84), respectively). The MESA-HNR diabetes CHD risk score has better accuracy for the main outcome versus the FRS or UKPDS [area under curve (AUC) of 0.76 vs. 0.70 and 0.69, respectively; all p < 0.05]. The MESA-HNR risk score improved risk classification versus the FRS (net reclassification improvement (NRI) = 0.19 and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) = 0.046, p < 0.05) and UKPDS (NRI = 0.215 and IDI = 0.046, p < 0.05). Compared with the ATP III guidelines, the MESA-HNR score has an NRI of 0.74 for the main outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This new CHD risk estimator has better discriminative ability for incident CHD than the FRS, UKPDS, and the ATP III/NCEP recommendations in a multi-ethnic cohort with T2DM.
OBJECTIVE: We develop a new diabetes CHD risk estimator using traditional risk factors plus coronary artery calcium (CAC), ankle-brachial index (ABI), high sensitivity C-reactive protein, family history of CHD, and carotid intima-media thickness and compared it with United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes study (UKPDS), Framingham risk and the NCEP/ATP III risk scores in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS AND RESULTS: We combined data from T2DM without clinical CVD in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study (N = 1343). After a mean follow-up of 8.5 years, 85 (6.3%) participants had incident CHD. Among the novel risk markers, CAC best predicted CHD independent of the FRS [hazard ratio: HR (95% CI): log (CAC +25):1.69 (1.45-1.97), p < 0.0001; CAC categories: CAC ≤ 25 as reference, >25 and ≤125:2.29 (0.87-5.95), >125 and ≤400: 3.87 (1.57-9.57), >400: 5.97 (2.57-13.84), respectively). The MESA-HNR diabetes CHD risk score has better accuracy for the main outcome versus the FRS or UKPDS [area under curve (AUC) of 0.76 vs. 0.70 and 0.69, respectively; all p < 0.05]. The MESA-HNR risk score improved risk classification versus the FRS (net reclassification improvement (NRI) = 0.19 and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) = 0.046, p < 0.05) and UKPDS (NRI = 0.215 and IDI = 0.046, p < 0.05). Compared with the ATP III guidelines, the MESA-HNR score has an NRI of 0.74 for the main outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This new CHD risk estimator has better discriminative ability for incident CHD than the FRS, UKPDS, and the ATP III/NCEP recommendations in a multi-ethnic cohort with T2DM.
Authors: Karel G M Moons; Andre Pascal Kengne; Mark Woodward; Patrick Royston; Yvonne Vergouwe; Douglas G Altman; Diederick E Grobbee Journal: Heart Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Joseph A C Delaney; Rebecca Scherzer; Mary L Biggs; Michael G Shliplak; Joseph F Polak; Judith S Currier; Richard A Kronmal; Christine Wanke; Peter Bacchetti; Daniel O'leary; Phyllis C Tien; Carl Grunfeld Journal: AIDS Date: 2010-09-10 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Maryam Kavousi; Suzette Elias-Smale; Joost H W Rutten; Maarten J G Leening; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Germaine C Verwoert; Gabriel P Krestin; Matthijs Oudkerk; Moniek P M de Maat; Frank W G Leebeek; Francesco U S Mattace-Raso; Jan Lindemans; Albert Hofman; Ewout W Steyerberg; Aad van der Lugt; Anton H van den Meiracker; Jacqueline C M Witteman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: S van Dieren; J W J Beulens; A P Kengne; L M Peelen; G E H M Rutten; M Woodward; Y T van der Schouw; K G M Moons Journal: Heart Date: 2011-12-18 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Henry N Ginsberg; Marshall B Elam; Laura C Lovato; John R Crouse; Lawrence A Leiter; Peter Linz; William T Friedewald; John B Buse; Hertzel C Gerstein; Jeffrey Probstfield; Richard H Grimm; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi; J Thomas Bigger; David C Goff; William C Cushman; Denise G Simons-Morton; Robert P Byington Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael H Criqui; Robyn L McClelland; Mary M McDermott; Matthew A Allison; Roger S Blumenthal; Victor Aboyans; Joachim H Ix; Gregory L Burke; Kaing Liu; Steven Shea Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Joseph Yeboah; Robyn L McClelland; Tamar S Polonsky; Gregory L Burke; Christopher T Sibley; Daniel O'Leary; Jeffery J Carr; David C Goff; Philip Greenland; David M Herrington Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joep Perk; Guy De Backer; Helmut Gohlke; Ian Graham; Zeljko Reiner; Monique Verschuren; Christian Albus; Pascale Benlian; Gudrun Boysen; Renata Cifkova; Christi Deaton; Shah Ebrahim; Miles Fisher; Giuseppe Germano; Richard Hobbs; Arno Hoes; Sehnaz Karadeniz; Alessandro Mezzani; Eva Prescott; Lars Ryden; Martin Scherer; Mikko Syvänne; Wilma J M Scholte op Reimer; Christiaan Vrints; David Wood; Jose Luis Zamorano; Faiez Zannad Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: S van Dieren; L M Peelen; U Nöthlings; Y T van der Schouw; G E H M Rutten; A M W Spijkerman; D L van der A; D Sluik; H Boeing; K G M Moons; J W J Beulens Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2010-11-14 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Daniel S Berman; Matthew J Budoff; James K Min; Paolo Raggi; Alan Rozanski; Leslee Shaw; Prem Soman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Claudia R L Cardoso; Juliana V Melo; Guilherme C Salles; Nathalie C Leite; Gil F Salles Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2018-08-15 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Shaista Malik; Yanglu Zhao; Matthew Budoff; Khurram Nasir; Roger S Blumenthal; Alain G Bertoni; Nathan D Wong Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; Paolo Raggi; George A Beller; Daniel S Berman; Regina S Druz; Shaista Malik; Vera H Rigolin; Wm Guy Weigold; Prem Soman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-02