Clinical Utility of Multiple Biomarker Panels for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction

Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 165-173

  Hughes, Maria ^a   Kee, Frank ^b   Salomaa, Veikko ^c  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^c NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular disease; Clinical utility; Multiple biomarkers; Risk scores

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; BRAIN NATRIURETIC PEPTIDE; C REACTIVE PROTEIN; CYSTATIN C; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; INTERLEUKIN 6; NEUROHORMONE; PRAVASTATIN; TROPONIN;

ALGORITHM; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; ATHEROSCLEROSIS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DISEASE COURSE; FOLLOW UP; FRAMINGHAM RISK SCORE; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; MORBIDITY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; STRATIFICATION;

EID: 84873508547     PISSN: 19329520     EISSN: 19329563     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12170-010-0153-1     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Kathiresan S, Melander O, Anevski D et al.: Polymorphisms associated with cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular events. N Eng J Med 2008, 358: 1240-1249.
2. Koenig W: Update on integrated biomarkers for assessment of long-term risk of cardiovascular complications in initially healthy subjects and patients with manifest atherosclerosis. Ann Med 2009, 41: 332-343.
3. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR: The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991, 11: 88-94.
4. Rothman K, Greenland S: Causation and causal inference in epidemiology. Am J Public Health 2005, 95: S144-S150.
5. Shaw LJ, Polk DM, Kahute TA, et al.: Prognostic accuracy of B natriuretic peptide measurements and coronary artery calcium in asymptomatic subjects (from the Early Identification of Subclinical Atherosclerosis by Noninvasive Imaging Research [EISNER] study). Am J Cardiol 2009, 104: 1245-1250.
6. Morrow DA, deLemos JA: Benchmarks for the assessment of novel cardiovascular biomarkers. Circulation 2007, 115: 949-952.
7. •• Hlatky, MA, Greenland P, Arnett DK, et al.: Criteria for evaluation of novel markers of cardiovascular risk, A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010, 119: 2408-2416. This statement reviews current concepts of risk evaluation and proposes standards for the critical appraisal of risk assessment methods with a focus on assessing the clinical value of novel markers of CVD risk.
8. Browne R, Whitcomb BW: Procedures for determination of detection limits: application to high performance liquid chromatography analysis of fat soluable vitamins in human serum. Epidemiology 2010, 21: S4-S9.
9. Omland T, de Lemos JA, Sabatine MS, et al.: A sensitive cardiac Troponin T assay in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2010, 361: 26: 2538-2546.
10. Tibshirani R: The lasso method for variable selection in the cox model. Stat Med 1997, 16; 385-395.
11. Cook NR: Use and misuse of the receiever operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 2007, 115: 928-935.
12. Pencina M, D'Agostino RB, D'Agostino RB Jr, Vasan RS: Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 2008, 27: 157-172.
13. Cook N, Ridker P: Advances in measuring the effect of individual predictors of cardiovascular risk: the role of reclassification measures. Ann Intern Med 2009, 150: 795-802.
14. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB: Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2008, 28: 453-473.
15. Sattar N, Gaw A, Scherbakova O, et al.: Metabolic syndrome with and without C reactive protein as a predictor of coronary heart disease and diabetes in the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study. Circulation 2003, 108: 414-419.
16. Ridker PM, Buring JE, Cook NR, Rifai N: C-reactive protein, the metabolic syndrome, and risk of incident cardiovascular events: an 8-year follow-up of 14 719 initially healthy American women. Circulation 2003, 107: 391-397.
17. Koenig W: Integrating biomarkers: The new frontier? Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2010, 70(Suppl 242): 117-123.
18. Mora S, Rifai N, Buring JE, Ridker PM: Additive value of immunoassay-measured fibrinogen and high-sensitivity Creactive protein levels for predicting incident cardiovascular events. Circulation 2006, 114: 381-7.
19. Lowe GD, Sweetnam PM, Yarnell JW, et al.: C-reactive protein, fibrin D-dimer, and risk of ischemic heart disease: the Caerphilly and Speedwell studies. ATVB 2004, 24: 1957-1962.
20. Kiechl S, Willeit J, Mayr M, et al.: Oxidized phospholipids, lipoprotein(a), lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 activity, and 10-year cardiovascular outcomes: prospective results from the Bruneck study. ATVB 2007, 27: 1788-1795.
21. Wang TJ, Gona P, Larson MG, et al.: Multiple biomarkers for the prediction of first major cardiovascular events and death. N Engl J Med 2006, 355(25): 2631-2639.
22. • Zethelius B, Berglund L, Sundström J, et al.: Use of multiple biomarkers to improve the prediction of death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med 2008, 358: 20: 2107-2116. This is one of the first articles to assess the clinical usefulness of a multiple biomarker score using newer metrics of clinical utility such as the NRI.
23. 2 and high sensitivity C-reactive protein improve the stratification of ischemic stroke risk in the atherosclerosis risk in communities (ARIC) study. Stroke 2009, 40: 376-381.
24. 2, inflammatory biomarkers, and risk of cardiovascular disease in the Prospective Study of Pracastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER). Atherosclerosis 2010, 210: 28-34.
25. Kizer JR, Krauser DG, Roseheffer RJ, et al.: Prognostic value of multiple biomarkers in American Indians free of clinically overt cardiovascular disease (from the Strong Heart Study). Am J Cardiol 2009, 104: 247-253.
26. • Kim HC, Greenland P, Rossouw JE, et al.: Multimarker prediction of coronary heart disease risk, the Women's Health Initiative. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010, 55(19): 2080-2091. This study assessed a multiple biomarker approach in a large sample of women enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative hormone trials. Five of 18 biomarkers modestly improved discrimination (1. 6%) compared with baseline models.
27. Melander O, Newton-Cheh C, Almgren P, et al.: Novel and conventional biomarkers for the prediction of incident cardiovascular events in the community. JAMA 2009, 302: 49-57.
28. 2 adds to risk prediction of incident coronary events by C-reactive protein in apparently healthy middle-aged men from the general population: results from the 14-year follow-up of a large cohort from southern Germany. Circulation 2004, 110: 1903-1908.
29. 2 predicts 5-year cardiac mortality independently of established risk factors and adds prognostic information in patients with low and medium high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (the Ludwigshafen Risk and Cardiovascular Health study). Clin Chem 2007, 53: 1440-1447.
30. •• Blankenberg S, Zeller T, Saarela O, et al.: Contribution of thirty biomarkers to ten-year cardiovascular risk prediction in two population cohorts. Circulation 2010, 121: 2388-2397. These authors developed a multiple biomarker risk score from a large panel of biomarkers in the FINRISK97 cohort for the prediction of 10-year risk of CVD and externally validated this score in another European cohort of 2551 middle- aged European men. The score shows the potential for multiple biomarker panels to refine risk prediction in subpopulations at intermediate risk, such middle-aged men.
31. Salomaa V, Havulinna A, Saarela O, et al.: Thirty-one novel biomarkers as predictors for clinically incident diabetes. PloS One 2010, 5: 1-8 e10100. doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0010100.
32. Rubin DB: Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. John Wiley & Sons, New York; 1987.
33. He Y: Missing data analysis using multiple imputation, Getting to the heart of the matter. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2010, 3: 98-105.
34. Moons KGM, Donders RART, Stijnen T, Harrell FE: Using the outcome for imputation of missing predictor values was preferred. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59: 1092-1101.
35. Schnabel, RB, Schulz A, Messow CM, et al.: Multiple marker approach to risk stratification in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 2010. doi: 10. 1093/eurhearj/ehq322.
36. Dunlay SM, Gerber Y, Weston SA, et al.: Prognostic value of biomarkers in heart failure: application of novel methods in the community. Circ Heart Fail 2009, 2: 393-400.
37. Nozaki T, Sugiyama S, Koga H, et al.: Significance of a multiple biomarker strategy including endothelial dysfunction to improve risk stratification for cardiovascular events in patients at high risk for coronary heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009, 54: 600-608.
38. Elliott P, Chambers JC, Zhang W, et al.: Genetic loci associated with C-reactive protein levels and risk of coronary heart disease. JAMA 2009, 302: 37-48.
39. The Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration: C-reactive protein concentration and risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality: an individual participant meta-analysis. Lancet 2010, 375: 132-140.
40. Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FAH, et al.: Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008, 59: 2195-2207.
41. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Lipid modification: cardiovascular risk assessment and the modification of blood lipids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, Costing report., Available at http://www. nice. ord. uk/CG067. Accessed May 2008.
42. Sheridan SL, Viera AJ, Krantz MJ, et al.: The effect of giving global coronary risk information to adults. Arch Int Med 2010, 170: 230-239.
43. Glasziou PP, Irwig L, Heritier S, Simes RJ, Tonkin A for the LIPID study investigators: Monitoring cholesterol levels: measurement error or true change? Ann Inter Med 2008, 148: 656-661.
44. Eagle, KA, Ginsburg GS, Musunuru K, et al.: Identifying patients at high risk of a cardiovascular event in the near future. Current status and future directions: Report of a National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Working Group. Circulation 2010, 121: 1447-1454.
45. • Schnell-Inderst P, Schwarzer R, Gohler A, et al.: Prognostic value, clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of high sensitivity C-reactive protein as a marker for major cardiac events in asymptomatic individuals: A health technology assessment report. Int J Tech Ass Health Care 2010, 26: 30-39. This study assessed the net effect of hsCRP screening strategy on clinical outcomes, underlined the importance of assessing the direct and indirect effects of a biomarker test on patient outcomes.
46. Henriksson, M, Palmer S, Chen R, et al.: Assessing the cost effectiveness of using prognostic biomarkers with decision models: case study in prioritising patients waiting for coronary artery surgery. BMJ 2010, 340: b5606.
47. Genders TSS, Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, et al.: CT coronary angiography in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease: decision making from various perspectives in the face of uncertainty. Radiology 2009, 253: 734-744.