Jennifer J Stuart1, Lauren J Tanz2, Nancy R Cook3, Donna Spiegelman4, Stacey A Missmer5, Eric B Rimm6, Kathryn M Rexrode7, Kenneth J Mukamal8, Janet W Rich-Edwards2. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Women's Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: jstuart@mail.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Women's Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Division of Women's Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) affect 10% to 15% of women and are associated with a 2-fold increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether inclusion of HDP in an established CVD risk score improves prediction of CVD events in women. METHODS: The analysis comprised 106,230 ≤10-year observations contributed by 67,406 women, age ≥40 years, free of prior CVD, with data available on model covariates in the Nurses' Health Study II. Participants were followed up for confirmed myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, or stroke from 1989 to 2013. We fit an established CVD risk prediction model (Model A: age, total cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive medication use, current smoking, diabetes mellitus) and compared it to the same model plus HDP and parity (Model B); Cox proportional hazards models were used to obtain predicted probabilities for 10-year CVD risk. RESULTS: HDP and parity were associated with 10-year CVD risk independent of established CVD risk factors, overall and at ages 40 to 49 years. However, inclusion of HDP and parity in the risk prediction model did not improve discrimination (Model A: C-index = 0.691; Model B: C-index = 0.693; p value for difference = 0.31) or risk reclassification (net reclassification improvement = 0.4%; 95% confidence interval: -0.2 to 1.0%; p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: In this first test of the clinical utility of HDP and parity in CVD risk prediction, additional inclusion of HDP and parity in an established risk score did not improve discrimination or reclassification in this low-risk population; this might be because of the known associations between HDP and established CVD risk factors in the reference model.
BACKGROUND:Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) affect 10% to 15% of women and are associated with a 2-fold increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether inclusion of HDP in an established CVD risk score improves prediction of CVD events in women. METHODS: The analysis comprised 106,230 ≤10-year observations contributed by 67,406 women, age ≥40 years, free of prior CVD, with data available on model covariates in the Nurses' Health Study II. Participants were followed up for confirmed myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, or stroke from 1989 to 2013. We fit an established CVD risk prediction model (Model A: age, total cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive medication use, current smoking, diabetes mellitus) and compared it to the same model plus HDP and parity (Model B); Cox proportional hazards models were used to obtain predicted probabilities for 10-year CVD risk. RESULTS: HDP and parity were associated with 10-year CVD risk independent of established CVD risk factors, overall and at ages 40 to 49 years. However, inclusion of HDP and parity in the risk prediction model did not improve discrimination (Model A: C-index = 0.691; Model B: C-index = 0.693; p value for difference = 0.31) or risk reclassification (net reclassification improvement = 0.4%; 95% confidence interval: -0.2 to 1.0%; p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: In this first test of the clinical utility of HDP and parity in CVD risk prediction, additional inclusion of HDP and parity in an established risk score did not improve discrimination or reclassification in this low-risk population; this might be because of the known associations between HDP and established CVD risk factors in the reference model.
Authors: Lauren J Tanz; Jennifer J Stuart; Paige L Williams; Eric B Rimm; Stacey A Missmer; Kathryn M Rexrode; Kenneth J Mukamal; Janet W Rich-Edwards Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Karol M Pencina; A Cecile J W Janssens; Philip Greenland Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: J E Manson; G A Colditz; M J Stampfer; W C Willett; A S Krolewski; B Rosner; R A Arky; F E Speizer; C H Hennekens Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 1991-06
Authors: Morven Caroline Brown; Kate Elizabeth Best; Mark Stephen Pearce; Jason Waugh; Stephen Courtenay Robson; Ruth Bell Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2013-02-09 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Nisha I Parikh; Rebecca P Jeppson; Jeffrey S Berger; Charles B Eaton; Candyce H Kroenke; Erin S LeBlanc; Cora E Lewis; Eric B Loucks; Donna R Parker; Eileen Rillamas-Sun; Kelli K Ryckman; Molly E Waring; Robert S Schenken; Karen C Johnson; Anna-Karin Edstedt-Bonamy; Matthew A Allison; Barbara V Howard Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Wietske Hermes; Jouke T Tamsma; Diana C Grootendorst; Arie Franx; Joris van der Post; Maria G van Pampus; Kitty Wm Bloemenkamp; Martina Porath; Ben W Mol; Christianne J M de Groot Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Christine Maric-Bilkan; Vikki M Abrahams; S Sonia Arteaga; Ghada Bourjeily; Kirk P Conrad; Janet M Catov; Maged M Costantine; Brian Cox; Vesna Garovic; Eric M George; Alison D Gernand; Arun Jeyabalan; S Ananth Karumanchi; Aaron D Laposky; Menachem Miodovnik; Megan Mitchell; Victoria L Pemberton; Uma M Reddy; Mark K Santillan; Eleni Tsigas; Kent L R Thornburg; Kenneth Ward; Leslie Myatt; James M Roberts Journal: Hypertension Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 10.190