Ersin Cavus1,2, Mahir Karakas1,2, Francisco M Ojeda1, Jukka Kontto3, Giovanni Veronesi4, Marco Mario Ferrario4, Allan Linneberg5,6,7, Torben Jørgensen5,8,9, Christa Meisinger10,11, Barbara Thorand10, Licia Iacoviello4,12, Daniela Börnigen1, Mark Woodward13,14,15, Renate Schnabel1,2, Simona Costanzo12, Hugh Tunstall-Pedoe13, Wolfgang Koenig16,17,18, Kari Kuulasmaa3, Veikko Salomaa3, Stefan Blankenberg1,2, Tanja Zeller1,2. 1. Department of General and Interventional Cardiology, University Heart Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 2. German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Partner Site Hamburg/Kiel/Lübeck, Hamburg, Germany. 3. National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland. 4. Research Center in Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy. 5. Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, the Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 7. Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 8. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 9. Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. 10. Institute of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health GmbH, Neuherberg, Germany. 11. Department of Epidemiology, University Center for Health Sciences at the Klinikum Augsburg (UNIKA-T), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Augsburg, Germany. 12. Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy. 13. Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Cardiovascular Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom. 14. The George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 15. The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 16. Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 17. Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. 18. German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
Importance: Risk stratification for coronary heart disease (CHD) remains challenging because of the complex causative mechanism of the disease. Metabolomic profiling offers the potential to detect new biomarkers and improve CHD risk assessment. Objective: To evaluate the association between circulating metabolites and incident CHD in a large European cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based study used the Biomarkers for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Europe (BiomarCaRE) case-cohort to measure circulating metabolites using a targeted approach in serum samples from 10 741 individuals without prevalent CHD. The cohort consisted of a weighted, random subcohort of the original cohort of more than 70 000 individuals. The case-cohort design was applied to 6 European cohorts: FINRISK97 (Finland), Monitoring of Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Diseases/Cooperative Health Research in the Region of Augsburg (MONICA/KORA; Germany), MONICA-Brianza and Moli-sani (Italy), DanMONICA (Denmark), and the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort (United Kingdom). Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations with time to CHD onset were assessed individually by applying weighted and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. The association of metabolites with CHD onset was examined by C indices. Results: In 10 741 individuals (4157 women [38.7%]; median [interquartile range] age, 56.5 [49.2-62.2] years), 2166 incident CHD events (20.2%) occurred over a median (interquartile range) follow-up time of 9.2 (4.5-15.0) years. Among the 141 metabolites analyzed, 24 were significantly associated with incident CHD at a nominal P value of .05, including phosphatidylcholines (PCs), lysoPCs, amino acids, and sphingolipids. Five PCs remained significant after correction for multiple testing: acyl-alkyl-PC C40:6 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13 [95% CI, 1.07-1.18]), diacyl-PC C40:6 (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.04-1.15]), acyl-alkyl-PC C38:6 (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.05-1.16]), diacyl-PC C38:6 (HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.04-1.14]) and diacyl-PC C38:5 (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.05-1.16]). Lower levels of these metabolites were associated with increased risk of incident CHD. The strength of the associations competes with those of classic risk factors (C statistics: acyl-alkyl-PC C40:6, 0.756 [95% CI, 0.738-0.774], diacyl-PC C40:6, 0.754 [95% CI, 0.736-0.772], acyl-alkyl-PC C38:6, 0.755 [95% CI, 0.736-0.773], diacyl-PC C38:6, 0.754 [95% CI, 0.736-0.772]), diacyl-PC C38:5, 0.754 [95% CI, 0.736-0.772]). Adding metabolites to a base risk model including classic risk factors high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and high-sensitivity troponin I did not improve discrimination by C statistics. Conclusions and Relevance: Five PCs were significantly associated with increased risk of incident CHD and showed comparable discrimination with individual classic risk factors. Although these metabolites do not improve CHD risk assessment beyond that of classic risk factors, these findings hold promise for an improved understanding of the pathophysiology of CHD.
Importance: Risk stratification for coronary heart disease (CHD) remains challenging because of the complex causative mechanism of the disease. Metabolomic profiling offers the potential to detect new biomarkers and improve CHD risk assessment. Objective: To evaluate the association between circulating metabolites and incident CHD in a large European cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based study used the Biomarkers for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Europe (BiomarCaRE) case-cohort to measure circulating metabolites using a targeted approach in serum samples from 10 741 individuals without prevalent CHD. The cohort consisted of a weighted, random subcohort of the original cohort of more than 70 000 individuals. The case-cohort design was applied to 6 European cohorts: FINRISK97 (Finland), Monitoring of Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Diseases/Cooperative Health Research in the Region of Augsburg (MONICA/KORA; Germany), MONICA-Brianza and Moli-sani (Italy), DanMONICA (Denmark), and the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort (United Kingdom). Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations with time to CHD onset were assessed individually by applying weighted and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. The association of metabolites with CHD onset was examined by C indices. Results: In 10 741 individuals (4157 women [38.7%]; median [interquartile range] age, 56.5 [49.2-62.2] years), 2166 incident CHD events (20.2%) occurred over a median (interquartile range) follow-up time of 9.2 (4.5-15.0) years. Among the 141 metabolites analyzed, 24 were significantly associated with incident CHD at a nominal P value of .05, including phosphatidylcholines (PCs), lysoPCs, amino acids, and sphingolipids. Five PCs remained significant after correction for multiple testing: acyl-alkyl-PC C40:6 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13 [95% CI, 1.07-1.18]), diacyl-PC C40:6 (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.04-1.15]), acyl-alkyl-PC C38:6 (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.05-1.16]), diacyl-PC C38:6 (HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.04-1.14]) and diacyl-PC C38:5 (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.05-1.16]). Lower levels of these metabolites were associated with increased risk of incident CHD. The strength of the associations competes with those of classic risk factors (C statistics: acyl-alkyl-PC C40:6, 0.756 [95% CI, 0.738-0.774], diacyl-PC C40:6, 0.754 [95% CI, 0.736-0.772], acyl-alkyl-PC C38:6, 0.755 [95% CI, 0.736-0.773], diacyl-PC C38:6, 0.754 [95% CI, 0.736-0.772]), diacyl-PC C38:5, 0.754 [95% CI, 0.736-0.772]). Adding metabolites to a base risk model including classic risk factors high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and high-sensitivity troponin I did not improve discrimination by C statistics. Conclusions and Relevance: Five PCs were significantly associated with increased risk of incident CHD and showed comparable discrimination with individual classic risk factors. Although these metabolites do not improve CHD risk assessment beyond that of classic risk factors, these findings hold promise for an improved understanding of the pathophysiology of CHD.
Authors: Daniel E Cruz; Usman A Tahir; Jie Hu; Debby Ngo; Zsu-Zsu Chen; Jeremy M Robbins; Daniel Katz; Raji Balasubramanian; Bennet Peterson; Shuliang Deng; Mark D Benson; Xu Shi; Lucas Dailey; Yan Gao; Adolfo Correa; Thomas J Wang; Clary B Clish; Kathryn M Rexrode; James G Wilson; Robert E Gerszten Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 30.154
Authors: Marie Breeur; Pietro Ferrari; Laure Dossus; Mazda Jenab; Mattias Johansson; Sabina Rinaldi; Ruth C Travis; Mathilde His; Tim J Key; Julie A Schmidt; Kim Overvad; Anne Tjønneland; Cecilie Kyrø; Joseph A Rothwell; Nasser Laouali; Gianluca Severi; Rudolf Kaaks; Verena Katzke; Matthias B Schulze; Fabian Eichelmann; Domenico Palli; Sara Grioni; Salvatore Panico; Rosario Tumino; Carlotta Sacerdote; Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Karina Standahl Olsen; Torkjel Manning Sandanger; Therese Haugdahl Nøst; J Ramón Quirós; Catalina Bonet; Miguel Rodríguez Barranco; María-Dolores Chirlaque; Eva Ardanaz; Malte Sandsveden; Jonas Manjer; Linda Vidman; Matilda Rentoft; David Muller; Kostas Tsilidis; Alicia K Heath; Hector Keun; Jerzy Adamski; Pekka Keski-Rahkonen; Augustin Scalbert; Marc J Gunter; Vivian Viallon Journal: BMC Med Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 11.150
Authors: Peter McGranaghan; Jennifer A Kirwan; Mariel A Garcia-Rivera; Burkert Pieske; Frank Edelmann; Florian Blaschke; Sandeep Appunni; Anshul Saxena; Muni Rubens; Emir Veledar; Tobias Daniel Trippel Journal: Metabolites Date: 2021-09-14
Authors: Ana Nogal; Panayiotis Louca; Tran Quoc Bao Tran; Ruth C Bowyer; Paraskevi Christofidou; Claire J Steves; Sarah E Berry; Kari Wong; Jonathan Wolf; Paul W Franks; Massimo Mangino; Tim D Spector; Ana M Valdes; Sandosh Padmanabhan; Cristina Menni Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Elena Michelucci; Nicoletta Di Giorgi; Francesco Finamore; Jeff M Smit; Arthur J H A Scholte; Giovanni Signore; Silvia Rocchiccioli Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 4.379