Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Im April diskutierten die Herz-Kreislauf-Spezialisten aus der ganzen Welt auf dem  Kongress des American College of Cardiology (ACC) u.a. neue Therapieansätze bei akutem Myokardinfarkt, koronarer Herzerkrankung, kardiogenem Schock oder Aortenklappenstenose. In unserem Kongress-Dossier haben wir für Sie Berichte über die „Late-Breaking Trials“ und andere wichtige Studien zusammengestellt. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports
Erschienen in: Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports 2/2011

01.04.2011

Clinical Utility of Multiple Biomarker Panels for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction

verfasst von: Maria Hughes, Frank Kee, Veikko Salomaa

Erschienen in: Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports | Ausgabe 2/2011

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Current cardiovascular risk prediction is imprecise, with clinical treatment aimed at those with high risk of disease while neglecting those at intermediate risk who might benefit from early treatment. Biomarkers can capture features of subclinical atherosclerosis, but although many studies have shown their association with cardiovascular risk, whether they can improve the performance of prediction algorithms is contested. The combined use of multiple biomarkers offers promise for refining risk assessment by adding incremental information from different pathophysiologic pathways. The utility of certain combinations of multiple biomarkers has been shown to have greatest effect in selected patient subgroups (ie, middle-aged men and those at intermediate risk). Carefully designed randomized controlled trials are needed to understand the clinical implications of risk stratification using multiple biomarker panels.
Literatur
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.CrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Fryback DG, Thornbury JR: The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991, 11:88–94.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Rothman K, Greenland S: Causation and causal inference in epidemiology. Am J Public Health 2005, 95:S144–S150.PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Morrow DA, deLemos JA: Benchmarks for the assessment of novel cardiovascular biomarkers. Circulation 2007, 115:949–952.PubMedCrossRef
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. CrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
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.CrossRef
10.
Tibshirani R: The lasso method for variable selection in the cox model. Stat Med 1997, 16;385–395.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Cook NR: Use and misuse of the receiever operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 2007, 115:928–935.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Pencina M, D’Agostino RB Sr, 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.PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMed
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.PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Koenig W: Integrating biomarkers: The new frontier? Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2010, 70(Suppl 242):117–123.CrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
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. PubMedCrossRef
23.
Nambi V, Hoogeveen RC, Chambless L, et al.: Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 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.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Caslake M, Packard CJ, Robertson M, et al.: Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2, inflammatory biomarkers, and risk of cardiovascular disease in the Prospective Study of Pracastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER). Atherosclerosis 2010, 210:28–34.PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
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. PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Koenig W, Khuseyinova N, Lowel H, et al.: Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 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.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Winkler K, Hoffmann MM, Winkelmann BR, et al.: Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 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.PubMedCrossRef
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 PubMedCrossRef
31.
32.
Rubin DB: Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. John Wiley & Sons, New York; 1987.CrossRef
33.
He Y: Missing data analysis using multiple imputation, Getting to the heart of the matter. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2010, 3:98–105.PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
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. CrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Clinical Utility of Multiple Biomarker Panels for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction
verfasst von
Maria Hughes
Frank Kee
Veikko Salomaa
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2011
Verlag
Current Science Inc.
Erschienen in
Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports / Ausgabe 2/2011
Print ISSN: 1932-9520
Elektronische ISSN: 1932-9563
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-010-0153-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2011

Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports 2/2011 Zur Ausgabe

ReviewPaper

Red Meat Intake and the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

ReviewPaper

Weight Loss Drugs and Cardiovascular Risks

ReviewPaper

Cocoa Consumption, Cocoa Flavonoids, and Effects on Cardiovascular Risk Factors: An Evidence-Based Review

ReviewPaper

Fitness, Fatness, and Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Outcomes

ReviewPaper

The Global Burden of Cardiovascular Disease: The Role of Endothelial Function and Arterial Elasticity in Cardiovascular Disease as Novel and Emerging Biomarkers

ReviewPaper

Does the 9p21 Genetic Variant Have a Role in Cardiovascular Risk Prediction?

Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

„Jeder Fall von plötzlichem Tod muss obduziert werden!“

17.05.2024 Plötzlicher Herztod Nachrichten

Ein signifikanter Anteil der Fälle von plötzlichem Herztod ist genetisch bedingt. Um ihre Verwandten vor diesem Schicksal zu bewahren, sollten jüngere Personen, die plötzlich unerwartet versterben, ausnahmslos einer Autopsie unterzogen werden.

Hirnblutung unter DOAK und VKA ähnlich bedrohlich

17.05.2024 Direkte orale Antikoagulanzien Nachrichten

Kommt es zu einer nichttraumatischen Hirnblutung, spielt es keine große Rolle, ob die Betroffenen zuvor direkt wirksame orale Antikoagulanzien oder Marcumar bekommen haben: Die Prognose ist ähnlich schlecht.

Schlechtere Vorhofflimmern-Prognose bei kleinem linken Ventrikel

17.05.2024 Vorhofflimmern Nachrichten

Nicht nur ein vergrößerter, sondern auch ein kleiner linker Ventrikel ist bei Vorhofflimmern mit einer erhöhten Komplikationsrate assoziiert. Der Zusammenhang besteht nach Daten aus China unabhängig von anderen Risikofaktoren.

Semaglutid bei Herzinsuffizienz: Wie erklärt sich die Wirksamkeit?

17.05.2024 Herzinsuffizienz Nachrichten

Bei adipösen Patienten mit Herzinsuffizienz des HFpEF-Phänotyps ist Semaglutid von symptomatischem Nutzen. Resultiert dieser Benefit allein aus der Gewichtsreduktion oder auch aus spezifischen Effekten auf die Herzinsuffizienz-Pathogenese? Eine neue Analyse gibt Aufschluss.

Update Kardiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise