 |
|
An Assessment of Incremental Coronary Risk Prediction Using C-Reactive Protein and Other Novel Risk Markers
The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study
Aaron R. Folsom, MD, MPH;
Lloyd E. Chambless, PhD;
Christie M. Ballantyne, MD;
Josef Coresh, MD, PhD;
Gerardo Heiss, MD;
Kenneth K. Wu, MD, PhD;
Eric Boerwinkle, PhD;
Thomas H. Mosley, Jr, PhD;
Paul Sorlie, PhD;
Guoqing Diao, PhD;
A. Richey Sharrett, MD, DrPH
Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1368-1373.
ABSTRACT
| |
Background There has been interest in recent years in whether additional, and in particular novel, risk factors or blood markers, such as C-reactive protein, can enhance existing coronary heart disease (CHD) prediction models.
Methods Using a series of case-cohort studies, the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study assessed the association of 19 novel risk markers with incident CHD in 15 792 adults followed up since 1987-1989. Novel markers included measures of inflammation, endothelial function, fibrin formation, fibrinolysis, B vitamins, and antibodies to infectious agents. Change in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the additional contribution of novel risk markers to CHD prediction beyond that of traditional risk factors.
Results The basic risk factor model, which included traditional risk factors (age, race, sex, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive medication use, smoking status, and diabetes), predicted CHD well, as evidenced by an AUC of approximately 0.8. The C-reactive protein level did not add significantly to the AUC (increase in AUC of 0.003), and neither did most other novel risk factors. Of the 19 markers studied, lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2, vitamin B6, interleukin 6, and soluble thrombomodulin added the most to the AUC (range, 0.006-0.011).
Conclusions Our findings suggest that routine measurement of these novel markers is not warranted for risk assessment. On the other hand, our findings reinforce the utility of major, modifiable risk factor assessment to identify individuals at risk for CHD for preventive action.
INTRODUCTION
Epidemiologic research has identified many risk factors associated with increased incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD). The Framingham Heart Study pioneered the use of the major risk factors (eg, age, high blood pressure, cigarette smoking, elevated total cholesterol level, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C] level, and diabetes mellitus) in regression models to predict an individual's risk of CHD reasonably well.1 The Framingham CHD prediction equations apply generally to other US populations,2 including the middle-aged Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study cohort.3 Clinical professionals have adapted prediction models for use in preventive cardiology; for example, via the National Cholesterol Education Panel's adult treatment guidelines.4 An advantage of current prediction models is that most of the major risk factors included are modifiable, with known clinical benefit to their modification.
There has been interest in recent years in whether novel risk factors or markers, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), can enhance existing CHD prediction models.5-8 Risk markers often show a statistically significant association with CHD, but receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis indicates that they add little to CHD prediction. Using ROC analysis, we recently showed in the ARIC Study that several novel risk factors or markers did not individually improve CHD prediction much beyond established risk factors.9 A combination of additional risk markers (body mass index, waist-hip ratio, Keys dietary score, serum albumin level, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, lipoprotein (a) level, heart rate, fibrinogen level, factor VIII, von Willebrand factor, pack-years of smoking, sport activity, and carotid intima media thickness) moderately increased CHD prediction.9 However, adding a large battery of tests to improve prediction of CHD would have little use in the typical clinical setting.
The ARIC ROC analysis9 did not include CRP or several other novel risk markers because they were measured in nested case-cohort studies on subsets of the ARIC Study cohort, not the entire cohort. We subsequently developed statistical methods for ROC analysis of incident disease using nested case-cohort data. In this study, we examined whether CRP or other individual novel risk factors or markers contribute to the prediction of incident CHD in the ARIC Study beyond that achieved using the traditional major risk factors alone.
METHODS
The ARIC Study is a prospective study of cardiovascular disease incidence in a cohort of 15 792 persons, initially aged 45 to 74 years and sampled from 4 US communities in 1987-1989.3 A baseline examination and 3 subsequent triennial examinations were conducted. Follow-up is ongoing and complete for incident CHD (ie, myocardial infarction, fatal CHD, or coronary revascularization).9-10
At baseline, cigarette smoking, blood pressure, antihypertensive medication use, total cholesterol and HDL-C levels, and diabetes were measured using standardized methods.3 Serum, plasma, and DNA samples were collected and stored for nested case-cohort studies at 4 times during follow-up. The design involved all available incident CHD cases at the time, compared with a stratified random sample of the ARIC Study cohort. Sampling excluded patients with CHD, stroke, or transient ischemic attacks at baseline and was restricted to white and African American individuals. We stratified the sampling by age, sex, and ultrasonographically assessed carotid intima media thickness. Cohort members were randomly selected within these strata, and the analysis was weighted to provide ARIC Study population estimates. Methods have been published for measuring levels of CRP and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (LpPLA2)11; antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus 112-13; serum vitamin B6, folate, and homocysteine14; D-dimer, plasminogen, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 antigen, and tissue plasminogen activator antigen15; soluble thrombomodulin16; intracellular adhesion molecule 1; and E-selectin.17 In addition, using commercial assays, we measured plasma leptin (Linco Research Inc, St Charles, Mo) and interleukin 6 (IL-6), matrix metalloproteinase 1, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (R&D Systems Inc, Minneapolis, Minn). Reliability coefficients from split samples (n = 20-96) sent blinded to the laboratory were 0.81 for leptin, 0.40 for IL-6, 0.74 for matrix metalloproteinase 1, and 0.62 for tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1.
The data were analyzed by weighted proportional hazards regression, accounting for the stratified random sampling and the case-cohort design using the method by Barlow.18 To initially assess associations with incident CHD, hazard rate ratios were calculated for each categorical risk factor or for a 1-SD increment of each continuous risk factor. From the coefficients of the proportional hazards models, a risk score was calculated for each person by multiplying each model coefficient by the person's measured level for the risk variable associated with that coefficient, then summing all these products. Our measure of individual risk predictivity of a model is the area under the ROC curve (AUC),19 which is the probability that a person who had an incident event within a specified time (in this case 5 years) had a higher risk score than a person who did not have an event by that time. We used Kaplan-Meier–like methods to calculate the relevant probabilities of an event by 5 years in the face of censoring,20 modified for this analysis by weighting for inverse sampling fractions. When the variables in the model are unrelated to the event of interest, the expected AUC would be 0.5. Thus, the AUC has a range of 0.5 to 1. A test of the hypothesis "risk score A yields a higher AUC than risk score B" has been presented19 but is not directly applicable to use with the curves derived from censored data through a proportional hazards model. Our approach to this test used the bootstrap method.19, 21
As an alternative to ROC curves, to visually display the increase in predictivity due to additional variables, we present graphs of the predicted probability of an incident CHD event within the first 5 years of follow-up by decile of risk score. Improved prediction would be indicated by moving more of the predicted events out of the lower deciles of risk score into the upper deciles.
RESULTS
As indicated in Table 1, many of the novel risk factors showed a statistically significant age-adjusted association with incident CHD. For example, the hazard rate ratio of CHD per SD of log CRP was 1.28 (P<.001). Several of these hazard rate ratios, including those for log CRP (1.19), LpPLA2 (1.17), log IL-6 (1.28), intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (1.40), log D-dimer (1.36), soluble thrombomodulin (0.65), and log vitamin B6 (0.73), persisted after adjustment for established risk factors. For comparison, the adjusted hazard rate ratios per SD for traditional continuous risk factors were as follows: total cholesterol, 1.28; HDL-C, 0.53; and systolic blood pressure, 1.56. The adjusted hazard rate ratios per SD for categorical risk factors were as follows: antihypertensive medication use, 1.96; current smoking, 2.44; and diabetes, 1.78.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Cohort Mean and Hazard Rate Ratios for Incident Coronary Heart Disease Within 5 Years per 1-SD Increment for Single Novel Risk Factors From Case-Cohort Studies in the ARIC Study*
|
|
|
Table 2 gives the sample sizes (n = 203-666 incident CHD events) and ROC analysis results in the ARIC nested case-cohort studies. The basic risk factor model included age, race, sex, total cholesterol and HDL-C levels, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive medication use, smoking status, and diabetes. The basic model yielded good AUC values of approximately 0.8, varying somewhat among the 4 case-cohort sample groups. The AUC was approximately 0.82 for sample group 1, 0.81 for sample group 2, and 0.77 for sample groups 3 and 4, with variability due to missing data.
|
|
|
|
Table 2. AUCs for Incident Coronary Heart Disease Within 5 Years for a Basic Risk Factor Model Compared With the Basic Model With a Novel Risk Factor From Case-Cohort Studies in the ARIC Study
|
|
|
When CRP was added to the basic model, the 0.003 increase in AUC, from 0.767 to 0.770, was small and not statistically significant (P>.05) (Table 2). The incremental change for most other analytes was also small to nonexistent. The largest AUC increases were for log vitamin B6 (0.011), IL-6 (0.010), soluble thrombomodulin (0.005), and LpPLA2 (0.006). Because the sample size was largest for LpPLA2 (equivalent to CRP), the AUC increment for LpPLA2 was statistically significant (P<.05), whereas the larger AUC increments for vitamin B6, IL-6, and soluble thrombomodulin were not statistically significant.
To provide a perspective on how little prediction of CHD incidence was affected by adding log CRP to the basic risk equation, Figure 1 shows the predicted sex-specific probability of incident CHD within 5 years plotted by decile of risk. The distributions of event probabilities were virtually identical for the 2 models (with vs without log CRP). The corresponding, virtually identical, curves for LpPLA2 are shown in Figure 2.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Predicted 5-year risk of an incident coronary heart disease event, comparing the basic model with the basic model plus log C-reactive protein (CRP), for men (A) and women (B) in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Predicted 5-year risk of an incident coronary heart disease event, comparing the basic model with the basic model plus lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (LpPLA2), for men (A) and women (B) in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.
|
|
|
COMMENT
We assessed in a prospective study of middle-aged men and women whether adding CRP or 18 other novel risk factors individually to a basic risk model would improve prediction of incident CHD. The basic risk factor model predicted CHD well, as evidenced by an AUC of approximately 0.8. The CRP level did not add significantly to the AUC (increase in AUC of 0.003), and neither did most other novel risk factors. This is consistent with the finding from our previous report using the whole ARIC Study cohort that adding single novel risk factors to a basic CHD risk prediction model only modestly improved risk assessment, despite the fact that those novel risk factors were statistically significantly associated with CHD.9
Six previous prospective studies have also tended to show little or no gain by adding CRP to risk prediction models. For example, Ridker et al5 reported an AUC of 0.81 for a CHD incidence model in American women that included age, smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, hormone replacement therapy, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level; adding CRP to the model apparently did not change the AUC of 0.81. Koenig et al6 reported that the Framingham model1 yielded an ROC of 0.735 for CHD incidence prediction in German men; this AUC increased statistically significantly to 0.750 with the addition of CRP level. Danesh et al7 reported that a model that contained age, sex, total cholesterol level, smoking, and systolic blood pressure as CHD predictors yielded an AUC of 0.64 in Icelandic men; this AUC rose slightly to 0.65 with the addition of CRP. The Framingham Offspring Study reported that a model that contained age, sex, and metabolic syndrome as cardiovascular disease predictors yielded an AUC of 0.74; when CRP was added, this AUC remained 0.74.22 The Rotterdam Study reported an AUC of 0.773 for a model predicting myocardial infarction with traditional risk factors and 0.777 after adding CRP to the model.23 Similarly, the Quebec Cardiovascular Study reported an AUC of 0.705 with traditional risk factors predicting CHD and 0.706 after adding CRP.24
Several aspects of our analysis and the interpretation of ROC curves warrant discussion. Various methods can be used to assess the value of a new risk factor to risk prediction, and each method answers different questions regarding the impact of that new risk factor. An adjusted relative risk describes the impact of the risk factor when all others in the model are held constant. If this adjusted relative risk is more than trivially different from 1.0, the prediction could vary in a clinically significant way if this risk factor is present or absent. Thus, an adjusted relative risk that is both statistically and clinically significant is of value in predicting an individual's risk and is relevant to the physician. The ROC analysis and approaches that assess the impact of a risk equation in a population depend on sensitivity and specificity as well as on the magnitude of the relative risk estimates, the covariation among the risk factors, and their combinations. If the risk factors are highly correlated, few in the population would be discordant for these factors, and thus their contribution to excess cases could not be large even though such risk factors may have statistically significant risk estimates.
Furthermore, the prior inclusion of several major risk factors in a prediction model constrains the ability of a single additional risk factor to contribute to the AUC. This is especially the case in our study, given that our starting AUC using the basic risk factor model already was approximately 0.80. Since a rationale underlying the Framingham risk prediction equation is optimization based on established modifiable risk factors that are conveniently and inexpensively accessible to clinical professionals, addition of a candidate risk marker must improve prediction beyond that of a model optimized throughout 2 decades.
Although the significant and independent association of a novel risk factor with CHD often does not equate to improved prediction of CHD beyond that of basic risk factors, this does not imply that the novel risk factor is pathophysiologically unimportant or unsuitable as a target for intervention. In the ARIC Study, plasma cholesterol level adds only approximately 0.02 to the AUC of a prediction model that already includes systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive medication use, current smoking, diabetes, and HDL-C level.9 However, an elevated cholesterol level is unquestionably an important modifiable cause of CHD, and clinical trials demonstrate unequivocally that lowering cholesterol levels reduces CHD risk. Similarly, small reductions in average blood cholesterol levels in populations translate into reductions of CHD risk burden in communities that are of considerable public health importance. The systemic marker of inflammation, CRP, is another good example. The CRP level is consistently associated with CHD risk, in the context of inflammation playing an important role in atherogenesis and atherothrombotic events, and reduction of inflammation in the context of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering (as indexed by CRP reduction) may reduce risk of plaque rupture.5, 25-27 Some have also argued that CRP may be useful in both identifying and monitoring those who may benefit from statin therapy.25-26 Based on the totality of evidence, however, CRP level does not emerge as a clinically useful addition to basic risk factor assessment for identifying patients at risk of a first CHD event.
Strengths of this ARIC Study analysis are the large and diverse cohort, careful risk factor assessment, complete follow-up, and wide variety of novel factors assessed on samples obtained before CHD onset. The ARIC Study involved middle-aged individuals and can best be generalized to a similar population. A limitation was that the series of nested case-cohort studies resulted in sets of analytes being measured in different sets of CHD cases and controls. However, this should not have caused bias in the hazard rate ratios or AUC estimates. As is typical of nested case-cohort studies, the blood samples were stored at –70°C for up to a decade before analysis. It is possible that certain novel analytes degraded over time, which would have tended to weaken their predictive power. Also, having only a single assessment of less reliable analytes would tend to weaken their apparent predictive power. Nevertheless, the hazard rate ratios for many of the novel analytes, including CRP and LpPLA2, were similar to those in the literature, suggesting that error in novel analytes had no greater impact in the ARIC Study than in published studies.
One of the aims of the ARIC Study is to identify new risk factors or markers. Several novel risk markers examined were found to be associated with CHD risk, but few proved useful in improving the AUC of the basic risk factor prediction model. Therefore, we advise against their routine measurement for risk assessment. On the other hand, our findings reinforce the utility of major, modifiable risk factor assessment to identify individuals at risk for CHD for preventive action.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Correspondence: Aaron R. Folsom, MD, MPH, Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Suite 300, 1300 S Second St, Minneapolis, MN 55454-1015 (folsom{at}epi.umn.edu).
Accepted for Publication: March 28, 2006.
Author Contributions: Dr Folsom had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Financial Disclosure: None reported.
Funding/Support: The ARIC Study is a collaborative study supported by contracts N01-HC-55015, N01-HC-55016, N01-HC-55018, N01-HC-55019, N01-HC-55020, N01-HC-55021, and N01-HC-55022 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Acknowledgment: We thank Laura Kemmis for technical assistance and the participants and staff of the ARIC Study for important contributions for many years.
Author Affiliations: Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (Drs Folsom); Department of Biostatistics (Drs Chambless and Diao), and Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health (Dr Heiss), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine (Dr Ballantyne), Hemostasis Laboratory, Division of Hematology (Dr Wu), and Human Genetics Center and Institute of Molecular Medicine (Dr Boerwinkle), University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston; Departments of Epidemiology (Drs Coresh and Sharrett) and Biostatistics and Medicine (Dr Coresh), Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md; Department of Medicine (Geriatrics), University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson (Dr Mosley); and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (Dr Sorlie).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Wilson PWF, D’Agostino RB, Levy D, Belanger AM, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB. Prediction of coronary heart disease risk using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97:1837-1847.
FREE FULL TEXT
2. D’Agostino RB Sr, Grundy S, Sullivan LM, Wilson P. Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation. JAMA. 2001;286:180-187.
FREE FULL TEXT
3. The ARIC Investigators. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study: design and objectives. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129:687-702.
FREE FULL TEXT
4. Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001;285:2486-2497.
FREE FULL TEXT
5. Ridker PM, Rifai N, Rose L, Buring JE, Cook NR. Comparison of C-reactive protein and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in the prediction of first cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1557-1565.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Koenig W, Löwel H, Baumert J, Meisinger C. C-reactive protein modulates risk prediction based on the Framingham score: implications for future risk assessment: results from a large cohort study in southern Germany. Circulation. 2004;109:1349-1353.
FREE FULL TEXT
7. Danesh J, Wheeler JG, Hirschfield GM, et al. C-reactive protein and other circulating markers of inflammation in the prediction of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1387-1397.
FREE FULL TEXT
8. Cushman M, Arnold AM, Psaty BM, et al. C-reactive protein and the 10-year incidence of coronary heart disease in older men and women: the Cardiovascular Health Study. Circulation. 2005;112:25-31.
FREE FULL TEXT
9. Chambless LE, Folsom AR, Sharrett AR, et al. Coronary heart disease risk prediction in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:880-890.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
10. White AD, Folsom AR, Chambless LE, et al. Community surveillance of coronary heart disease in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study: methods and initial two years' experience. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:223-233.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
11. Ballantyne CM, Hoogeveen RC, Bang H, et al. Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and risk for incident coronary heart disease in middle-aged men and women in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Circulation. 2004;109:837-842.
FREE FULL TEXT
12. Nieto FJ, Folsom AR, Sorlie PD, Grayston JT, Wang S-P, Chambless LE. Chlamydia pneumoniae infection and incident coronary heart disease: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150:149-156.
FREE FULL TEXT
13. Sorlie PD, Nieto FJ, Adam E, Folsom AR, Shahar E, Massing M. A prospective study of cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex virus I, and coronary heart disease: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2027-2032.
FREE FULL TEXT
14. Folsom AR, Nieto FJ, McGovern PG, et al. Prospective study of coronary heart disease incidence in relation to fasting total homocysteine, related genetic polymorphisms, and B vitamins: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Circulation. 1998;98:204-210.
FREE FULL TEXT
15. Folsom AR, Aleksic N, Park E, Salomaa V, Juneja H, Wu KK. Prospective study of fibrinolytic factors and incident coronary heart disease: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2001;21:611-617.
FREE FULL TEXT
16. Salomaa V, Matei C, Aleksic N, et al. Soluble thrombomodulin as a predictor of incident coronary heart disease: the ARIC Study. Lancet. 1999;353:1729-1734.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
17. Hwang SJ, Ballantyne CM, Sharrett AR, et al. Circulating adhesion molecules VCAM-1, ICAM-1, and E-selectin in carotid atherosclerosis and incident coronary heart disease cases: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Circulation. 1997;96:4219-4225.
FREE FULL TEXT
18. Barlow WE. Robust variance estimation for the case-cohort design. Biometrics. 1994;50:1064-1072.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
19. Campbell G. General methodology, I: advances in statistical methodology for the evaluation of diagnostic and laboratory tests. Stat Med. 1994;13:499-508.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
20. Chambless LE, Diao G. Estimation of time-dependent area under the ROC curve for long-term risk prediction. www.interscience.wiley.com. doi: 10.1002/sim.2299. Accessed May 8, 2006.21. DiCiccio TJ, Efron B. Bootstrap Confidence Intervals. Stanford, Calif: Division of Biostatistics, Stanford University: 1995. Technical Report 175.22. Rutter MK, Meigs JB, Sullivan LM, D’Agostino RB, Wilson PWF. C-reactive protein, the metabolic syndrome, and prediction of cardiovascular events in the Framingham Offspring Study. Circulation. 2004;110:380-385.
FREE FULL TEXT
23. van der Meer IM, de Maat MPM, Kiliaan AJ, van der Kuip DAM, Hofman A, Witteman JCM. The value of C-reactive protein in cardiovascular risk prediction. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1323-1328.
FREE FULL TEXT
24. St. Pierre AC, Cantin B, Bergeron J, et al. Inflammatory markers and long-term risk of ischemic heart disease in men: a 13-year follow-up of the Quebec Cardiovascular Study. Atherosclerosis. 2005;182:315-321.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
25. Nissen SE, Tuzcu EM, Schoenhagen P, et al. Statin therapy, LDL cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:29-38.
FREE FULL TEXT
26. Ridker PM, Cannon CP, Morrow D, et al. C-reactive protein levels and outcomes after statin therapy. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:20-28.
FREE FULL TEXT
27. Ridker PM, Rifai N, Clearfield M, et al. Measurement of C-reactive protein for the targeting of statin therapy in the primary prevention of acute coronary events. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1959-1965.
FREE FULL TEXT
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Predicting Cardiovascular Risk: So What Do We Do Now?
Donald M. Lloyd-Jones and Lu Tian
Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(13):1342-1344.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
C-reactive protein improves risk prediction in patients with acute coronary syndrome, or does it?
Kaski
Eur Heart J 2010;31:274-277.
FULL TEXT
Markers of Atherosclerosis and Inflammation for Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease in Older Adults
Rodondi et al.
Am J Epidemiol 2010;:kwp428v1-kwp428.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Improving Global Vascular Risk Prediction With Behavioral and Anthropometric Factors The Multiethnic NOMAS (Northern Manhattan Cohort Study).
Sacco et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:2303-2311.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Assessment of Claims of Improved Prediction Beyond the Framingham Risk Score
Tzoulaki et al.
JAMA 2009;302:2345-2352.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
C-Reactive Protein as a Risk Factor for Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Buckley et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2009;151:483-495.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Emerging Risk Factors for Coronary Heart Disease: A Summary of Systematic Reviews Conducted for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Helfand et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2009;151:496-507.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Newer Antiphospholipid Antibodies Predict Adverse Outcomes in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome
Greco et al.
Am J Clin Pathol 2009;132:613-620.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Urinary Adiponectin Excretion: A Novel Marker for Vascular Damage in Type 2 Diabetes
von Eynatten et al.
Diabetes 2009;58:2093-2099.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Genetic Loci Associated With C-Reactive Protein Levels and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease
Elliott et al.
JAMA 2009;302:37-48.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Novel and Conventional Biomarkers for Prediction of Incident Cardiovascular Events in the Community
Melander et al.
JAMA 2009;302:49-57.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Biomarkers and Cardiovascular Disease: Determining Causality and Quantifying Contribution to Risk Assessment
Shah and de Lemos
JAMA 2009;302:92-93.
FULL TEXT
The Report Card on Growth Differentiation Factor 15: Consistent Marks But Not Yet Ready for Promotion
Rohatgi and de Lemos
Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2009;2:209-211.
FULL TEXT
Impact of socioeconomic, behavioral and clinical risk factors on mortality
Rask et al.
J Public Health (Oxf) 2009;31:231-238.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impact of Adding a Single Allele in the 9p21 Locus to Traditional Risk Factors on Reclassification of Coronary Heart Disease Risk and Implications for Lipid-Modifying Therapy in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study
Brautbar et al.
Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2009;2:279-285.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Do inflammatory biomarkers add to the discrimination of cardiovascular disease after allowing for social deprivation? Results from a 10 year cohort study in Glasgow, Scotland
Woodward et al.
Eur Heart J 2009;0:ehp115v1-ehp115.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
C-Reactive Protein and Coronary Heart Disease: Predictive Test or Therapeutic Target?
Hingorani et al.
Clin. Chem. 2009;55:239-255.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Association Between C-Reactive Protein Genotype, Circulating Levels, and Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity
Schumacher et al.
Hypertension 2009;53:150-157.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Use of Framingham risk score and new biomarkers to predict cardiovascular mortality in older people: population based observational cohort study
de Ruijter et al.
BMJ 2009;338:a3083-a3083.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evaluating cardiovascular risk assessment for asymptomatic people
Scott
BMJ 2009;338:a2844-a2844.
FULL TEXT
Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Type 2 Diabetes in Patients at Metabolic Risk: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline
Rosenzweig et al.
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2008;93:3671-3689.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Importance of a Patient's Personal Health History on Assessments of Future Risk of Coronary Heart Disease
Mainous et al.
J Am Board Fam Med 2008;21:408-413.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Review: Endothelial progenitor cells: markers of vascular reparative capacity
Povsic and Goldschmidt-Clermont
Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis 2008;2:199-213.
ABSTRACT
Effects of Socioeconomic Position on Inflammatory and Hemostatic Markers: A Life-Course Analysis in the 1958 British Birth Cohort
Tabassum et al.
Am J Epidemiol 2008;167:1332-1341.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
New cardiovascular risk determinants do exist and are clinically useful
Levinson
Eur Heart J 2008;29:1335-1335.
FULL TEXT
Cardiovascular Outcomes in the Outpatient Kidney Transplant Clinic: The Framingham Risk Score Revisited
Kiberd and Panek
CJASN 2008;3:822-828.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Why traumatic leg amputees are at increased risk for cardiovascular diseases
Naschitz and Lenger
QJM 2008;101:251-259.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Comparison of Risk Stratification Schemes to Predict Thromboembolism in People With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation
Fang et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:810-815.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
New cardiovascular risk determinants do exist and are clinically useful
Smulders et al.
Eur Heart J 2008;29:436-440.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
New cardiovascular risk factors exist, but are they clinically useful?
Wang
Eur Heart J 2008;29:441-444.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Myeloperoxidase, but not C-reactive protein, predicts cardiovascular risk in peripheral arterial disease
Brevetti et al.
Eur Heart J 2008;29:224-230.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, Biomarkers, and Metformin: Research, Risk, and Reality
Sattar and Nelson
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2008;93:34-36.
FULL TEXT
Risk assessment in the patient with established peripheral arterial disease
Haugen et al.
Vasc Med 2007;12:343-350.
ABSTRACT
Rate of Change and Instability in Body Mass Index, Insulin Resistance, and Lipid Metabolism as Predictors of Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease
Christen et al.
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2007;92:3780-3787.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cardiovascular Biomarkers: Added Value With an Integrated Approach?
Koenig
Circulation 2007;116:3-5.
FULL TEXT
Association of Carotid Artery Intima-Media Thickness, Plaques, and C-Reactive Protein With Future Cardiovascular Disease and All-Cause Mortality: The Cardiovascular Health Study
Cao et al.
Circulation 2007;116:32-38.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease Risk using a Genetic Risk Score: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study
Morrison et al.
Am J Epidemiol 2007;166:28-35.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
C-Reactive Protein and the Prediction of Cardiovascular Events Among Those at Intermediate Risk: Moving an Inflammatory Hypothesis Toward Consensus
Ridker
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:2129-2138.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Prognostic Accuracy of Coronary Calcification
Guerci
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1871-1873.
FULL TEXT
The Year in Atherothrombosis
Sanz et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1740-1749.
FULL TEXT
C-Reactive Protein and Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease and Global Vascular Events in the Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER)
Sattar et al.
Circulation 2007;115:981-989.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Use and Misuse of the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Risk Prediction
Cook
Circulation 2007;115:928-935.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Development and Validation of Improved Algorithms for the Assessment of Global Cardiovascular Risk in Women: The Reynolds Risk Score
Ridker et al.
JAMA 2007;297:611-619.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Lipoprotein-Associated Phospholipase A2 and Risk Stratification for Cardiovascular Disease: Not Ready for 'Prime Time'
Steinberg and Mayer
Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:155-157.
FULL TEXT
Multiple Biomarkers for the Prediction of First Major Cardiovascular Events and Death
Wang et al.
NEJM 2006;355:2631-2639.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Hyperinsulinemia and Cognitive Decline in a Middle-Aged Cohort
Young et al.
Diabetes Care 2006;29:2688-2693.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Lp-PLA2: A New Kid on the Block
Zalewski et al.
Clin. Chem. 2006;52:1645-1650.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Nontraditional CHD Risk Markers: How Much Value Do They Add?
Journal Watch Cardiology 2006;2006:1-1.
FULL TEXT
C-Reactive Protein: Not Ready for Population-Wide CVD Risk Assessment
JWatch General 2006;2006:1-1.
FULL TEXT
Predicting cardiovascular risk: so what do we do now?
Lloyd-Jones and Tian
Arch Intern Med 2006;166:1342-1344.
FULL TEXT
|
