Omar F AbouEzzeddine1,2, Paul M McKie1,2, Christopher G Scott3, Richard J Rodeheffer1,2, Horng H Chen1,2, G Michael Felker4, Allan S Jaffe2,5, John C Burnett1,2, Margaret M Redfield6,7. 1. Cardiorenal Research Laboratory. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN, USA. 6. Cardiorenal Research Laboratory. redfield.margaret@mayo.edu. 7. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN, USA. redfield.margaret@mayo.edu.
Abstract
AIMS: Guided by predictive characteristics of cardiovascular biomarkers, we explored the clinical implications of a simulated biomarker-guided heart failure (HF) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) prevention strategy in the community. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a community cohort (n = 1824), the predictive characteristics for HF and MACE of galectin-3 (Gal-3), ST2, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hscTnI), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) were established. We performed number needed to screen (NNS) and treat (NNT) with the intervention analyses according to biomarker screening strategy and intervention efficacy in persons with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. In the entire cohort, for both HF and MACE, the predictive characteristics of NT-proBNP and hscTnI were superior to other biomarkers; alone, in a multimarker model, and adjusting for clinical risk factors. An NT-proBNP-guided preventative intervention with an intervention effect size (4-year hazard ratio for intervention in biomarker positive cohort) of ≤0.7 would reduce the global burden of HF by ≥20% and MACE by ≥15%. From this simulation, the NNS to prevent one HF event or MACE in 4 years would be ≤100 with a NNT to prevent one HF event of ≤20 and one MACE of ≤10. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive characteristics of NT-proBNP and hscTnI for HF or MACE in the community are superior to other biomarkers. Biomarker-guided preventative interventions with reasonable efficacy would compare favourably to established preventative interventions. This data provides a framework for biomarker selection which may inform design of biomarker-guided preventative intervention trials.
AIMS: Guided by predictive characteristics of cardiovascular biomarkers, we explored the clinical implications of a simulated biomarker-guided heart failure (HF) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) prevention strategy in the community. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a community cohort (n = 1824), the predictive characteristics for HF and MACE of galectin-3 (Gal-3), ST2, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hscTnI), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) were established. We performed number needed to screen (NNS) and treat (NNT) with the intervention analyses according to biomarker screening strategy and intervention efficacy in persons with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. In the entire cohort, for both HF and MACE, the predictive characteristics of NT-proBNP and hscTnI were superior to other biomarkers; alone, in a multimarker model, and adjusting for clinical risk factors. An NT-proBNP-guided preventative intervention with an intervention effect size (4-year hazard ratio for intervention in biomarker positive cohort) of ≤0.7 would reduce the global burden of HF by ≥20% and MACE by ≥15%. From this simulation, the NNS to prevent one HF event or MACE in 4 years would be ≤100 with a NNT to prevent one HF event of ≤20 and one MACE of ≤10. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive characteristics of NT-proBNP and hscTnI for HF or MACE in the community are superior to other biomarkers. Biomarker-guided preventative interventions with reasonable efficacy would compare favourably to established preventative interventions. This data provides a framework for biomarker selection which may inform design of biomarker-guided preventative intervention trials.
Authors: Claire Sweeney; Fiona Ryan; Mark Ledwidge; Cristin Ryan; Ken McDonald; Chris Watson; Rebabonye B Pharithi; Joe Gallagher Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-10-15
Authors: Rudolf A de Boer; Matthew Nayor; Christopher R deFilippi; Danielle Enserro; Vijeta Bhambhani; Jorge R Kizer; Michael J Blaha; Frank P Brouwers; Mary Cushman; Joao A C Lima; Hossein Bahrami; Pim van der Harst; Thomas J Wang; Ron T Gansevoort; Caroline S Fox; Hanna K Gaggin; Willem J Kop; Kiang Liu; Ramachandran S Vasan; Bruce M Psaty; Douglas S Lee; Hans L Hillege; Traci M Bartz; Emelia J Benjamin; Cheeling Chan; Matthew Allison; Julius M Gardin; James L Januzzi; Sanjiv J Shah; Daniel Levy; David M Herrington; Martin G Larson; Wiek H van Gilst; John S Gottdiener; Alain G Bertoni; Jennifer E Ho Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Chia-Ying Liu; Susan R Heckbert; Shenghan Lai; Bharath Ambale-Venkatesh; Mohammad R Ostovaneh; Robyn L McClelland; João A C Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Carlos M Ferrario; Seethalakshmi R Iyer; John C Burnett; Sarfaraz Ahmad; Kendra N Wright; Jessica L VonCannon; Amit Saha; Leanne Groban Journal: Hypertension Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 10.190