Article

Predicting mortality with biomarkers: a population-based prospective cohort study for elderly Costa Ricans.

Population Health Metrics (Impact Factor: 2.11). 06/2012; 10(1):11. DOI:10.1186/1478-7954-10-11
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Little is known about adult health and mortality relationships outside high-income nations, partly because few datasets have contained biomarker data in representative populations. Our objective is to determine the prognostic value of biomarkers with respect to total and cardiovascular mortality in an elderly population of a middle-income country, as well as the extent to which they mediate the effects of age and sex on mortality. METHODS: This is a prospective population-based study in a nationally representative sample of elderly Costa Ricans. Baseline interviews occurred mostly in 2005 and mortality follow-up went through December 2010. Sample size after excluding observations with missing values: 2,313 individuals and 564 deaths. Main outcome: prospective death rate ratios for 22 baseline biomarkers, which were estimated with hazard regression models. RESULTS: Biomarkers significantly predict future death above and beyond demographic and self-reported health conditions. The studied biomarkers account for almost half of the effect of age on mortality. However, the sex gap in mortality became several times wider after controlling for biomarkers. The most powerful predictors were simple physical tests: handgrip strength, pulmonary peak flow, and walking speed. Three blood tests also predicted prospective mortality: C-reactive protein (CRP), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS). Strikingly, high blood pressure (BP) and high total cholesterol showed little or no predictive power. Anthropometric measures also failed to show significant mortality effects. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the growing evidence that blood markers for CRP, HbA1c, and DHEAS, along with organ-specific functional reserve indicators (handgrip, walking speed, and pulmonary peak flow), are valuable tools for identifying vulnerable elderly. The results also highlight the need to better understand an anomaly noted previously in other settings: despite the continued medical focus on drugs for BP and cholesterol, high levels of BP and cholesterol have little predictive value of mortality in this elderly population.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
74 Views
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Separate multivariable risk algorithms are commonly used to assess risk of specific atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, ie, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure. The present report presents a single multivariable risk function that predicts risk of developing all CVD and of its constituents. We used Cox proportional-hazards regression to evaluate the risk of developing a first CVD event in 8491 Framingham study participants (mean age, 49 years; 4522 women) who attended a routine examination between 30 and 74 years of age and were free of CVD. Sex-specific multivariable risk functions ("general CVD" algorithms) were derived that incorporated age, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, treatment for hypertension, smoking, and diabetes status. We assessed the performance of the general CVD algorithms for predicting individual CVD events (coronary heart disease, stroke, peripheral artery disease, or heart failure). Over 12 years of follow-up, 1174 participants (456 women) developed a first CVD event. All traditional risk factors evaluated predicted CVD risk (multivariable-adjusted P<0.0001). The general CVD algorithm demonstrated good discrimination (C statistic, 0.763 [men] and 0.793 [women]) and calibration. Simple adjustments to the general CVD risk algorithms allowed estimation of the risks of each CVD component. Two simple risk scores are presented, 1 based on all traditional risk factors and the other based on non-laboratory-based predictors. A sex-specific multivariable risk factor algorithm can be conveniently used to assess general CVD risk and risk of individual CVD events (coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral arterial disease and heart failure). The estimated absolute CVD event rates can be used to quantify risk and to guide preventive care.
    Circulation 03/2008; 117(6):743-53. · 15.20 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Few studies focus on "preclinical" warning signs associated with mortality. In this article, we investigate associations between all-cause mortality and two clusters of biological risk factors: (i) standard clinical measures related to cardiovascular disease and metabolic function; and (ii) nonclinical measures pertaining to hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity, sympathetic nervous system activity, and inflammatory response. Data come from the 2000 Social Environment and Biomarkers of Aging Study, a national sample of Taiwanese persons aged 54 years or older; 1497 persons were interviewed in their homes, and 1023 participated in a hospital examination. The analysis is based on 927 respondents with complete information. Logistic regression models describe the association between biomarkers and the 3-year probability of dying. Although both groups of biomarkers are significantly associated with mortality, the model with neuroendocrine and immune biomarkers has better explanatory and discriminatory power than the one with clinical measures. The association between these nonclinical measures and mortality remains strong after adjustment for the clinical markers, suggesting that the physiological effects of the nonclinical biomarkers are broader than those captured by the cardiovascular and metabolic system measures included here. Nonclinical markers are likely to provide warning signs of deteriorating health and function beyond what can be learned from conventional markers. Our findings are consistent with those of recent studies that (i) demonstrate the importance of neuroendocrine and immune system markers for survival, and (ii) indicate that standard clinical variables are less predictive of mortality in older than in younger populations.
    The Journals of Gerontology Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 11/2006; 61(10):1070-4. · 4.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Circulating inflammatory markers may more strongly relate to risk of fatal versus nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but robust prospective evidence is lacking. We tested whether interleukin (IL)-6, C-reactive protein (CRP), and fibrinogen more strongly associate with fatal compared to nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. In the Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER), baseline inflammatory markers in up to 5,680 men and women aged 70-82 y were related to risk for endpoints; nonfatal CVD (i.e., nonfatal MI and nonfatal stroke [n = 672]), fatal CVD (n = 190), death from other CV causes (n = 38), and non-CVD mortality (n = 300), over 3.2-y follow-up. Elevations in baseline IL-6 levels were significantly (p = 0.0009; competing risks model analysis) more strongly associated with fatal CVD (hazard ratio [HR] for 1 log unit increase in IL-6 1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44-2.12) than with risk of nonfatal CVD (1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.31), in analyses adjusted for treatment allocation. The findings were consistent in a fully adjusted model. These broad trends were similar for CRP and, to a lesser extent, for fibrinogen. The results were also similar in placebo and statin recipients (i.e., no interaction). The C-statistic for fatal CVD using traditional risk factors was significantly (+0.017; p<0.0001) improved by inclusion of IL-6 but not so for nonfatal CVD events (p = 0.20). In PROSPER, inflammatory markers, in particular IL-6 and CRP, are more strongly associated with risk of fatal vascular events than nonfatal vascular events. These novel observations may have important implications for better understanding aetiology of CVD mortality, and have potential clinical relevance.
    PLoS Medicine 06/2009; 6(6):e1000099. · 15.25 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
6 Downloads
Available from
Aug 31, 2013