Lee A Pyles1, Christa L Lilly2, Amy Joseph3, Charles J Mullett4, William A Neal3. 1. Department of Pediatrics and WVU Children's Hospital, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA. Electronic address: lpyles@hsc.wvu.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, WVU School of Public Health, Morgantown, WV, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics and WVU Children's Hospital, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics and WVU Children's Hospital, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA; WV Clinical and Translational Science Institute BioInformatics Core, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Coronary Artery Risk Detection in Appalachian Communities (CARDIAC) Project is a state-wide risk factor screening program that operated in West Virginia for 19 years and screened more than 100,000 5th graders for obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. OBJECTIVES: We investigated siblings in the CARDIAC Project to assess whether cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRFs) correlate in siblings. METHODS: We identified 12,053 children from 5752 families with lipid panel, blood pressure, and anthropometric data. A linkage application (LinkPlus from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) matched siblings based on parent names, addresses, telephone numbers, and school to generate a linkage probability curve. Graphical and statistical analyses demonstrate the relationships between CMRFs in siblings. RESULTS: Siblings showed moderate intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.375 for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), 0.34 for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and 0.22 for triglyceride levels. The body mass index (BMI) intraclass correlation coefficient (0.383) is slightly better (2%) than LDL-C or HDL-C, but the standardized beta values from linear regression suggest a 3-fold impact of sibling LDL-C over the child's own BMI. The odds ratio of a second sibling having LDL-C < 110 mg/dL with a first sibling at that level is 3.444:1 (Confidence Limit 3.031-3.915, P < .05). The odds ratio of a sibling showing an LDL-C ≥ 160 mg/dL, given a first sibling with that degree of elevated LDL-C is 29.6:1 (95% Confidence Limit: 15.54-56.36). The individual LDL-C level correlated more strongly with sibling LDL-C than with the individual's own BMI. Seventy-eight children with LDL-C > 160 mg/dL and negative family history would have been missed, which represents more than half of those with LDL-C > 160 mg/dL (78 vs 67 or 54%). CONCLUSIONS: Sibling HDL-C levels, LDL-C levels, and BMIs correlate within a family. Triglyceride and blood pressure levels are less well correlated. The identified CMRF relationships strengthen the main findings of the overall CARDIAC Project: an elevated BMI is not predictive of elevated LDL-C and family history of coronary artery disease poorly predicts cholesterol abnormality at screening. Family history does not adequately identify children who should be screened for cholesterol abnormality. Elevated LDL-C (>160 mg/dL) in a child strongly suggests that additional siblings and parents be screened if universal screening is not practiced.
BACKGROUND: The Coronary Artery Risk Detection in Appalachian Communities (CARDIAC) Project is a state-wide risk factor screening program that operated in West Virginia for 19 years and screened more than 100,000 5th graders for obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. OBJECTIVES: We investigated siblings in the CARDIAC Project to assess whether cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRFs) correlate in siblings. METHODS: We identified 12,053 children from 5752 families with lipid panel, blood pressure, and anthropometric data. A linkage application (LinkPlus from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) matched siblings based on parent names, addresses, telephone numbers, and school to generate a linkage probability curve. Graphical and statistical analyses demonstrate the relationships between CMRFs in siblings. RESULTS: Siblings showed moderate intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.375 for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), 0.34 for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and 0.22 for triglyceride levels. The body mass index (BMI) intraclass correlation coefficient (0.383) is slightly better (2%) than LDL-C or HDL-C, but the standardized beta values from linear regression suggest a 3-fold impact of sibling LDL-C over the child's own BMI. The odds ratio of a second sibling having LDL-C < 110 mg/dL with a first sibling at that level is 3.444:1 (Confidence Limit 3.031-3.915, P < .05). The odds ratio of a sibling showing an LDL-C ≥ 160 mg/dL, given a first sibling with that degree of elevated LDL-C is 29.6:1 (95% Confidence Limit: 15.54-56.36). The individual LDL-C level correlated more strongly with sibling LDL-C than with the individual's own BMI. Seventy-eight children with LDL-C > 160 mg/dL and negative family history would have been missed, which represents more than half of those with LDL-C > 160 mg/dL (78 vs 67 or 54%). CONCLUSIONS: Sibling HDL-C levels, LDL-C levels, and BMIs correlate within a family. Triglyceride and blood pressure levels are less well correlated. The identified CMRF relationships strengthen the main findings of the overall CARDIAC Project: an elevated BMI is not predictive of elevated LDL-C and family history of coronary artery disease poorly predicts cholesterol abnormality at screening. Family history does not adequately identify children who should be screened for cholesterol abnormality. Elevated LDL-C (>160 mg/dL) in a child strongly suggests that additional siblings and parents be screened if universal screening is not practiced.
Authors: Philippa J Talmud; Sonia Shah; Ros Whittall; Marta Futema; Philip Howard; Jackie A Cooper; Seamus C Harrison; Kawah Li; Fotios Drenos; Frederik Karpe; H Andrew W Neil; Olivier S Descamps; Claudia Langenberg; Nicholas Lench; Mika Kivimaki; John Whittaker; Aroon D Hingorani; Meena Kumari; Steve E Humphries Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joseph T Flynn; David C Kaelber; Carissa M Baker-Smith; Douglas Blowey; Aaron E Carroll; Stephen R Daniels; Sarah D de Ferranti; Janis M Dionne; Bonita Falkner; Susan K Flinn; Samuel S Gidding; Celeste Goodwin; Michael G Leu; Makia E Powers; Corinna Rea; Joshua Samuels; Madeline Simasek; Vidhu V Thaker; Elaine M Urbina Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Lee A Pyles; Christa L Lilly; Charles J Mullett; Emily S Polak; Eloise M Elliott; William A Neal Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 5.922
Authors: Paula Lozano; Nora B Henrikson; John Dunn; Caitlin C Morrison; Matt Nguyen; Paula R Blasi; Melissa L Anderson; Evelyn P Whitlock Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Børge G Nordestgaard; M John Chapman; Steve E Humphries; Henry N Ginsberg; Luis Masana; Olivier S Descamps; Olov Wiklund; Robert A Hegele; Frederick J Raal; Joep C Defesche; Albert Wiegman; Raul D Santos; Gerald F Watts; Klaus G Parhofer; G Kees Hovingh; Petri T Kovanen; Catherine Boileau; Maurizio Averna; Jan Borén; Eric Bruckert; Alberico L Catapano; Jan Albert Kuivenhoven; Päivi Pajukanta; Kausik Ray; Anton F H Stalenhoef; Erik Stroes; Marja-Riitta Taskinen; Anne Tybjærg-Hansen Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Mark J Pletcher; Eric Vittinghoff; Anusorn Thanataveerat; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Andrew E Moran Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 3.240