| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Willeit, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Progression as Surrogate Marker for Cardiovascular Risk: Meta-Analysis of 119 Clinical Trials Involving 100 667 Patients
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 1524-4539. ; 142:7, s. 621-642
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: To quantify the association between effects of interventions on carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) progression and their effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. METHODS: We systematically collated data from randomized, controlled trials. cIMT was assessed as the mean value at the common-carotid-artery; if unavailable, the maximum value at the common-carotid-artery or other cIMT measures were used. The primary outcome was a combined CVD end point defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization procedures, or fatal CVD. We estimated intervention effects on cIMT progression and incident CVD for each trial, before relating the 2 using a Bayesian meta-regression approach. RESULTS: We analyzed data of 119 randomized, controlled trials involving 100 667 patients (mean age 62 years, 42% female). Over an average follow-up of 3.7 years, 12 038 patients developed the combined CVD end point. Across all interventions, each 10 μm/y reduction of cIMT progression resulted in a relative risk for CVD of 0.91 (95% Credible Interval, 0.87-0.94), with an additional relative risk for CVD of 0.92 (0.87-0.97) being achieved independent of cIMT progression. Taken together, we estimated that interventions reducing cIMT progression by 10, 20, 30, or 40 μm/y would yield relative risks of 0.84 (0.75-0.93), 0.76 (0.67-0.85), 0.69 (0.59-0.79), or 0.63 (0.52-0.74), respectively. Results were similar when grouping trials by type of intervention, time of conduct, time to ultrasound follow-up, availability of individual-participant data, primary versus secondary prevention trials, type of cIMT measurement, and proportion of female patients. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of intervention effects on cIMT progression predicted the degree of CVD risk reduction. This provides a missing link supporting the usefulness of cIMT progression as a surrogate marker for CVD risk in clinical trials.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- den Ruijter, H. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Common carotid intima-media thickness does not add to Framingham risk score in individuals with diabetes mellitus: the USE-IMT initiative
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Diabetologia. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1432-0428 .- 0012-186X. ; 56:7, s. 1494-1502
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this work was to investigate whether measurement of the mean common carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) improves cardiovascular risk prediction in individuals with diabetes. We performed a subanalysis among 4,220 individuals with diabetes in a large ongoing individual participant data meta-analysis involving 56,194 subjects from 17 population-based cohorts worldwide. We first refitted the risk factors of the Framingham heart risk score on the individuals without previous cardiovascular disease (baseline model) and then expanded this model with the mean common CIMT (CIMT model). The absolute 10 year risk for developing a myocardial infarction or stroke was estimated from both models. In individuals with diabetes we compared discrimination and calibration of the two models. Reclassification of individuals with diabetes was based on allocation to another cardiovascular risk category when mean common CIMT was added. During a median follow-up of 8.7 years, 684 first-time cardiovascular events occurred among the population with diabetes. The C statistic was 0.67 for the Framingham model and 0.68 for the CIMT model. The absolute 10 year risk for developing a myocardial infarction or stroke was 16% in both models. There was no net reclassification improvement with the addition of mean common CIMT (1.7%; 95% CI -1.8, 3.8). There were no differences in the results between men and women. There is no improvement in risk prediction in individuals with diabetes when measurement of the mean common CIMT is added to the Framingham risk score. Therefore, this measurement is not recommended for improving individual cardiovascular risk stratification in individuals with diabetes.
|
|
