0
Letters |

Biomarkers for Prediction of Cardiovascular Events

Nancy R. Cook, ScD
JAMA. 2009;302(19):2089-2090. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1636
Text Size: A A A
Published online

To the Editor: Dr Melander and colleagues1 suggested that gains in risk prediction using new biomarkers for cardiovascular disease are minimal using risk reclassification, a technique that can help determine whether new markers can change clinical decisions.2 In contrast to similar analyses using data from the Women's Health Study, the Physicians' Health Study, and the Framingham Heart Study, there was no improvement in risk stratification with new markers, including C-reactive protein (CRP).

However, the study's methods and conclusions raise some questions. First, while the authors presented the net reclassification improvement (NRI) for each of the new markers, they did not present the NRI for the traditional markers, thus providing no basis for comparison. The NRI is similar for traditional measures and for CRP in predicting cardiovascular disease,2 and this comparison would indicate the power of their study to detect important differences. Second, the NRI and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) values were apparently computed using events as of 10 years of follow-up, reducing the number of analyzed cardiovascular events from 418 to 238, leading to a loss of information and power. Third, use of 3 categories rather than 4 reduces the size of the NRI,2 limiting comparability across studies. The previously used cut point of 10% seems justified given the decreasing costs of statins. Fourth, the nonsignificant P values for the IDI are surprising given that it is similar to a difference in R2,3 a highly sensitive test that should be comparable with the test of the hazard ratio.

The number of deaths due to noncardiovascular causes was also sizeable in these data. The authors did not compute the NRI for total death, although they did so for a variety of end-point definitions using the same risk categories. Despite the absence of clinical risk categories for mortality, the movement of individuals across the same risk levels would be of interest. In addition to the NRI, the reclassification calibration test2 would determine whether the predicted risks were closer to those observed for all comparisons.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Financial Disclosures: None reported.

REFERENCES

Melander O, Newton-Cheh C, Almgren P,  et al.  Novel and conventional biomarkers for prediction of incident cardiovascular events in the community.  JAMA. 2009;302(1):49-57
PubMedCrossRef
Cook NR, Ridker PM. Advances in measuring the effect of individual predictors of cardiovascular risk: the role of reclassification measures.  Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(11):795-802
PubMed
Pepe MS, Feng Z, Gu JW. Comments on ‘Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new biomarker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond’ by M.J. Pencina et al, Statistics in Medicine (DOI: 10.1002/sim.2929).  Stat Med. 2008;27(2):173-181
PubMedCrossRef

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

Melander O, Newton-Cheh C, Almgren P,  et al.  Novel and conventional biomarkers for prediction of incident cardiovascular events in the community.  JAMA. 2009;302(1):49-57
PubMedCrossRef
Cook NR, Ridker PM. Advances in measuring the effect of individual predictors of cardiovascular risk: the role of reclassification measures.  Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(11):795-802
PubMed
Pepe MS, Feng Z, Gu JW. Comments on ‘Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new biomarker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond’ by M.J. Pencina et al, Statistics in Medicine (DOI: 10.1002/sim.2929).  Stat Med. 2008;27(2):173-181
PubMedCrossRef
November 18, 2009
Robert S. Rosenstein, MD; David Parra, PharmD
JAMA. 2009;302(19):2089-2090.
November 18, 2009
Olle Melander, MD, PhD; Christopher Newton-Cheh, MD, MPH; Thomas J. Wang, MD
JAMA. 2009;302(19):2089-2090.
CME Course for:


You need to register in order to view this quiz.


To understand the clinical management of acute heart failure syndromes.
Accreditation Information The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
To view and print your certificate and access a summary of your CME courses go to My CME.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s “Cited By” API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Response

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.