New Risk Factors Do Not Improve Assessment of Coronary Heart Disease

	Tweet

Screening for levels of C-reactive protein and other compounds recently found to be associated with coronary heart disease may not help physicians predict risk for the condition with any more accuracy than traditional major risk factors, according to a report in the July 10 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.

Major risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD), which include age, race, sex, blood pressure, diabetes, total and HDL (good) cholesterol levels, smoking status and the use of medications to control blood pressure, predict an individual’s probability of developing the condition with reasonable accuracy. Most are also modifiable, so physicians can advise patients on how to change their lifestyle to reduce their risk, according to background information in the article. In recent years, researchers have identified additional risk factors and chemical markers associated with CHD, such as C-reactive protein, a compound in the blood that signifies inflammation caused by injury or infection.

Aaron R. Folsom, M.D., M.P.H., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues with the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study assessed the benefits of screening patients’ levels of 19 novel chemical markers, including C-reactive protein, antibodies against infectious diseases, B vitamins and compounds involved in the functioning of blood vessel lining. The ARIC Study enrolled a total of 15,792 adults between the ages of 45 and 74 years in 1987-1989. The participants underwent a physical examination, including assessment of major risk factors, at the beginning of the study and every three years afterward. At four times during the follow-up period, researchers collected blood and DNA samples for analysis. Patients continue to be tracked for the development of CHD.

Several of the compounds tested, including C-reactive protein and vitamin B6, were significantly associated with CHD. The researchers looked at each marker and assessed the probability that a participant who developed CHD within a five-year period had a higher risk score than a participant who did not develop CHD. Using this method, they determined that most of the novel markers did not significantly increase the ability of physicians to predict CHD.

“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,” the authors write. “Based on the totality of evidence, however, C-reactive protein level does not emerge as a clinically useful addition to basic risk factor assessment for identifying patients at risk of a first CHD event.”

Routine screening is not warranted for any of the other 18 novel risk factors tested either, the authors conclude. “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,” they write.

American Medical Association (AMA)

RELATED STORIES:
Scientists turn skin cells into beating heart muscle   Too many people get angioplasties, study suggests   New Blood Thinner May Lower Chances of Clots in High-Risk Heart Patients: FDA   Heart Damage After Chemo Linked to Stress in Cardiac Cells   What’s good or bad for the heart, may be the same for the brain   Warfarin in Heart Failure   Increased Sudden Cardiac Death Rate Among HIV Patients   Air pollution level changes in Beijing linked with biomarkers of cardiovascular disease   Lack of basic evidence hampering prevention of sudden heart attacks in sport   Blacks Less Likely to Get Help on Scene After Cardiac Arrest: Study   Heart attack patients taken to PCI hospitals first treated faster   Cameron Health’s under-skin ICD safe, effective

Comments

[ + Post Your Own ]

Now you're in the public comment zone. What follows is not Armenian Medical Network's stuff; it comes from other people and we don't vouch for it. A reminder: By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

There are no comments for this entry yet. [ + Comment here + ]