Screening for Future Cardiovascular Disease Using Age Alone Compared with Multiple Risk Factors and Age

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

The dose-response relationship between cigarette consumption, biochemical markers and risk of lung cancer.

The relationship between the number of cigarettes smoked per day and the incidence of lung cancer is linear but, from the multistage model of carcinogenesis, it should be quadratic (upwards curving). We investigated this anomaly in a study of 11,403 male never smokers and current smokers in whom carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) was measured in all and serum cotinine in 1175. The relationship between the biochemical markers and the reported number of cigarettes per day was approximately linear up to 20 cigarettes per day as expected. But above 20 cigarettes per day the marker levels increased less steeply and were 35% lower than expected in men who smoked more than 40 cigarettes per day. Less smoke is inhaled from each cigarette by men with high daily cigarette consumption than by men with lower consumption. Allowance for this transforms the observed linear dose-response relationship into one consistent with the expected quadratic relationship. The anomaly is explained by the observation that heavier smokers inhale less smoke from each cigarette

A Novel Method to Adjust Efficacy Estimates for Uptake of Other Active Treatments in Long-Term Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND: When rates of uptake of other drugs differ between treatment arms in long-term trials, the true benefit or harm of the treatment may be underestimated. Methods to allow for such contamination have often been limited by failing to preserve the randomization comparisons. In the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study, patients were randomized to fenofibrate or placebo, but during the trial many started additional drugs, particularly statins, more so in the placebo group. The effects of fenofibrate estimated by intention-to-treat were likely to have been attenuated. We aimed to quantify this effect and to develop a method for use in other long-term trials. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We applied efficacies of statins and other cardiovascular drugs from meta-analyses of randomized trials to adjust the effect of fenofibrate in a penalized Cox model. We assumed that future cardiovascular disease events were reduced by an average of 24% by statins, and 20% by a first other major cardiovascular drug. We applied these estimates to each patient who took these drugs for the period they were on them. We also adjusted the analysis by the rate of discontinuing fenofibrate. Among 4,900 placebo patients, average statin use was 16% over five years. Among 4,895 assigned fenofibrate, statin use was 8% and nonuse of fenofibrate was 10%. In placebo patients, use of cardiovascular drugs was 1% to 3% higher. Before adjustment, fenofibrate was associated with an 11% reduction in coronary events (coronary heart disease death or myocardial infarction) (P = 0.16) and an 11% reduction in cardiovascular disease events (P = 0.04). After adjustment, the effects of fenofibrate on coronary events and cardiovascular disease events were 16% (P = 0.06) and 15% (P = 0.008), respectively. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This novel application of a penalized Cox model for adjustment of a trial estimate of treatment efficacy incorporates evidence-based estimates for other therapies, preserves comparisons between the randomized groups, and is applicable to other long-term trials. In the FIELD study example, the effects of fenofibrate on the risks of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease events were underestimated by up to one-third in the original analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN64783481

Evaluating the Quality of Research into a Single Prognostic Biomarker: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 83 Studies of C-Reactive Protein in Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Background Systematic evaluations of the quality of research on a single prognostic biomarker are rare. We sought to evaluate the quality of prognostic research evidence for the association of C-reactive protein (CRP) with fatal and nonfatal events among patients with stable coronary disease. Methods and Findings We searched MEDLINE (1966 to 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to 2009) and selected prospective studies of patients with stable coronary disease, reporting a relative risk for the association of CRP with death and nonfatal cardiovascular events. We included 83 studies, reporting 61,684 patients and 6,485 outcome events. No study reported a prespecified statistical analysis protocol; only two studies reported the time elapsed (in months or years) between initial presentation of symptomatic coronary disease and inclusion in the study. Studies reported a median of seven items (of 17) from the REMARK reporting guidelines, with no evidence of change over time. The pooled relative risk for the top versus bottom third of CRP distribution was 1.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78–2.17), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 79.5). Only 13 studies adjusted for conventional risk factors (age, sex, smoking, obesity, diabetes, and low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol) and these had a relative risk of 1.65 (95% CI 1.39–1.96), I2 = 33.7. Studies reported ten different ways of comparing CRP values, with weaker relative risks for those based on continuous measures. Adjusting for publication bias (for which there was strong evidence, Egger's p<0.001) using a validated method reduced the relative risk to 1.19 (95% CI 1.13–1.25). Only two studies reported a measure of discrimination (c-statistic). In 20 studies the detection rate for subsequent events could be calculated and was 31% for a 10% false positive rate, and the calculated pooled c-statistic was 0.61 (0.57–0.66). Conclusion Multiple types of reporting bias, and publication bias, make the magnitude of any independent association between CRP and prognosis among patients with stable coronary disease sufficiently uncertain that no clinical practice recommendations can be made. Publication of prespecified statistical analytic protocols and prospective registration of studies, among other measures, might help improve the quality of prognostic biomarker research