Cost-effectiveness of applying high-sensitivity troponin I to a score for cardiovascular risk prediction in asymptomatic population.

INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification scores such as the European Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) are used to guide individuals on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Adding high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) to such risk scores has the potential to improve accuracy of CVD prediction. We investigated how applying hsTnI in addition to SCORE may impact management, outcome, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Characteristics of 72,190 apparently healthy individuals from the Biomarker for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Europe (BiomarCaRE) project were included into a discrete-event simulation comparing two strategies for assessing CVD risk. The standard strategy reflecting current practice employed SCORE (SCORE); the alternative strategy involved adding hsTnI information for further stratifying SCORE risk categories (S-SCORE). Individuals were followed over ten years from baseline examination to CVD event, death or end of follow-up. The model tracked the occurrence of events and calculated direct costs of screening, prevention, and treatment from a European health system perspective. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in € per quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) gained during 10 years of follow-up. Outputs were validated against observed rates, and results were tested in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: S-SCORE yielded a change in management for 10.0% of individuals, and a reduction in CVD events (4.85% vs. 5.38%, p<0.001) and mortality (6.80% vs. 7.04%, p<0.001). S-SCORE led to 23 (95%CI: 20-26) additional event-free years and 7 (95%CI: 5-9) additional QALYs per 1,000 subjects screened, and resulted in a relative risk reduction for CVD of 9.9% (95%CI: 7.3-13.5%) with a number needed to screen to prevent one event of 183 (95%CI: 172 to 203). S-SCORE increased costs per subject by 187€ (95%CI: 177 € to 196 €), leading to an ICER of 27,440€/QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis was performed with eligibility for treatment being the most sensitive. CONCLUSION: Adding a person's hsTnI value to SCORE can impact clinical decision making and eventually improves QALYs and is cost-effective compared to CVD prevention strategies using SCORE alone. Stratifying SCORE risk classes for hsTnI would likely offer cost-effective alternatives, particularly when targeting higher risk groups.

Impact of Lipoprotein(a) Level on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol- or Apolipoprotein B-Related Risk of Coronary Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: Conventional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) quantification includes cholesterol attributable to lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)-C) due to their overlapping densities. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to compare the association between LDL-C and LDL-C corrected for Lp(a)-C (LDLLp(a)corr) with incident coronary heart disease (CHD) in the general population and to investigate whether concomitant Lp(a) values influence the association of LDL-C or apolipoprotein B (apoB) with coronary events. METHODS: Among 68,748 CHD-free subjects at baseline LDLLp(a)corr was calculated as "LDL-C-Lp(a)-C," where Lp(a)-C was 30% or 17.3% of total Lp(a) mass. Fine and Gray competing risk-adjusted models were applied for the association between the outcome incident CHD and: 1) LDL-C and LDLLp(a)corr in the total sample; and 2) LDL-C and apoB after stratification by Lp(a) mass (≥/<90th percentile). RESULTS: Similar risk estimates for incident CHD were found for LDL-C and LDL-CLp(a)corr30 or LDL-CLp(a)corr17.3 (subdistribution HR with 95% CI) were 2.73 (95% CI: 2.34-3.20) vs 2.51 (95% CI: 2.15-2.93) vs 2.64 (95% CI: 2.26-3.10), respectively (top vs bottom fifth; fully adjusted models). Categorization by Lp(a) mass resulted in higher subdistribution HRs for uncorrected LDL-C and incident CHD at Lp(a) ≥90th percentile (4.38 [95% CI: 2.08-9.22]) vs 2.60 [95% CI: 2.21-3.07]) at Lp(a) <90th percentile (top vs bottom fifth; Pinteraction0.39). In contrast, apoB risk estimates were lower in subjects with higher Lp(a) mass (2.43 [95% CI: 1.34-4.40]) than in Lp(a) <90th percentile (3.34 [95% CI: 2.78-4.01]) (Pinteraction0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Correction of LDL-C for its Lp(a)-C content provided no meaningful information on CHD-risk estimation at the population level. Simple categorization of Lp(a) mass (≥/<90th percentile) influenced the association between LDL-C or apoB with future CHD mostly at higher Lp(a) levels.

Prognostic Value of Cardiovascular Biomarkers in the Population.

Importance: Identification of individuals at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease within the population is important to inform primary prevention strategies. Objective: To evaluate the prognostic value of routinely available cardiovascular biomarkers when added to established risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: Individual-level analysis including data on cardiovascular biomarkers from 28 general population-based cohorts from 12 countries and 4 continents with assessments by participant age. The median follow-up was 11.8 years. Exposure: Measurement of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, B-type natriuretic peptide, or high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was incident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which included all fatal and nonfatal events. The secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, heart failure, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction. Subdistribution hazard ratios (HRs) for the association of biomarkers and outcomes were calculated after adjustment for established risk factors. The additional predictive value of the biomarkers was assessed using the C statistic and reclassification analyses. Results: The analyses included 164 054 individuals (median age, 53.1 years [IQR, 42.7-62.9 years] and 52.4% were women). There were 17 211 incident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events. All biomarkers were significantly associated with incident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (subdistribution HR per 1-SD change, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.11-1.16] for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I; 1.18 [95% CI, 1.12-1.23] for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T; 1.21 [95% CI, 1.18-1.24] for N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; 1.14 [95% CI, 1.08-1.22] for B-type natriuretic peptide; and 1.14 [95% CI, 1.12-1.16] for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) and all secondary outcomes. The addition of each single biomarker to a model that included established risk factors improved the C statistic. For 10-year incident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in younger people (aged <65 years), the combination of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein resulted in a C statistic improvement from 0.812 (95% CI, 0.8021-0.8208) to 0.8194 (95% CI, 0.8089-0.8277). The combination of these biomarkers also improved reclassification compared with the conventional model. Improvements in risk prediction were most pronounced for the secondary outcomes of heart failure and all-cause mortality. The incremental value of biomarkers was greater in people aged 65 years or older vs younger people. Conclusions and Relevance: Cardiovascular biomarkers were strongly associated with fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events and mortality. The addition of biomarkers to established risk factors led to only a small improvement in risk prediction metrics for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but was more favorable for heart failure and mortality.

C-reactive protein modifies lipoprotein(a)-related risk for coronary heart disease: the BiomarCaRE project.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recent investigations have suggested an interdependence of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]-related risk for cardiovascular disease with background inflammatory burden. The aim the present analysis was to investigate whether high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP) modulates the association between Lp(a) and coronary heart disease (CHD) in the general population. METHODS: Data from 71 678 participants from 8 European prospective population-based cohort studies were used (65 661 without/6017 with established CHD at baseline; median follow-up 9.8/13.8 years, respectively). Fine and Gray competing risk-adjusted models were calculated according to accompanying hsCRP concentration (<2 and ≥2 mg/L). RESULTS: Among CHD-free individuals, increased Lp(a) levels were associated with incident CHD irrespective of hsCRP concentration: fully adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratios [sHRs (95% confidence interval)] for the highest vs. lowest fifth of Lp(a) distribution were 1.45 (1.23-1.72) and 1.48 (1.23-1.78) for a hsCRP group of <2 and ≥2 mg/L, respectively, with no interaction found between these two biomarkers on CHD risk (Pinteraction = 0.82). In those with established CHD, similar associations were seen only among individuals with hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L [1.34 (1.03-1.76)], whereas among participants with a hsCRP concentration <2 mg/L, there was no clear association between Lp(a) and future CHD events [1.29 (0.98-1.71)] (highest vs. lowest fifth, fully adjusted models; Pinteraction = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: While among CHD-free individuals Lp(a) was significantly associated with incident CHD regardless of hsCRP, in participants with CHD at baseline, Lp(a) was related to recurrent CHD events only in those with residual inflammatory risk. These findings might guide adequate selection of high-risk patients for forthcoming Lp(a)-targeting compounds.