Pierre Ducimetière’s research while affiliated with Paris Descartes University and other places

Background The association between common carotid artery intima‐media thickness (CCA‐IMT) and incident carotid plaque has not been characterized fully. We therefore aimed to precisely quantify the relationship between CCA‐IMT and carotid plaque development. Methods and Results We undertook an individual participant data meta‐analysis of 20 prospective studies from the Proof‐ATHERO (Prospective Studies of Atherosclerosis) consortium that recorded baseline CCA‐IMT and incident carotid plaque involving 21 494 individuals without a history of cardiovascular disease and without preexisting carotid plaque at baseline. Mean baseline age was 56 years (SD, 9 years), 55% were women, and mean baseline CCA‐IMT was 0.71 mm (SD, 0.17 mm). Over a median follow‐up of 5.9 years (5th–95th percentile, 1.9–19.0 years), 8278 individuals developed first‐ever carotid plaque. We combined study‐specific odds ratios (ORs) for incident carotid plaque using random‐effects meta‐analysis. Baseline CCA‐IMT was approximately log‐linearly associated with the odds of developing carotid plaque. The age‐, sex‐, and trial arm–adjusted OR for carotid plaque per SD higher baseline CCA‐IMT was 1.40 (95% CI, 1.31–1.50; I ² =63.9%). The corresponding OR that was further adjusted for ethnicity, smoking, diabetes, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, low‐ and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and lipid‐lowering and antihypertensive medication was 1.34 (95% CI, 1.24–1.45; I ² =59.4%; 14 studies; 16 297 participants; 6381 incident plaques). We observed no significant effect modification across clinically relevant subgroups. Sensitivity analysis restricted to studies defining plaque as focal thickening yielded a comparable OR (1.38 [95% CI, 1.29–1.47]; I ² =57.1%; 14 studies; 17 352 participants; 6991 incident plaques). Conclusions Our large‐scale individual participant data meta‐analysis demonstrated that CCA‐IMT is associated with the long‐term risk of developing first‐ever carotid plaque, independent of traditional cardiovascular risk factors.

Aims Averaged measurements, but not the progression based on multiple assessments of carotid intima-media thickness, (cIMT) are predictive of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in individuals. Whether this is true for conventional risk factors is unclear. Methods and results An individual participant meta-analysis was used to associate the annualised progression of systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol with future cardiovascular disease risk in 13 prospective cohort studies of the PROG-IMT collaboration ( n = 34,072). Follow-up data included information on a combined cardiovascular disease endpoint of myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death. In secondary analyses, annualised progression was replaced with average. Log hazard ratios per standard deviation difference were pooled across studies by a random effects meta-analysis. In primary analysis, the annualised progression of total cholesterol was marginally related to a higher cardiovascular disease risk (hazard ratio (HR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.07). The annualised progression of systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was not associated with future cardiovascular disease risk. In secondary analysis, average systolic blood pressure (HR 1.20 95% CI 1.11 to 1.29) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.16) were related to a greater, while high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) was related to a lower risk of future cardiovascular disease events. Conclusion Averaged measurements of systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol displayed significant linear relationships with the risk of future cardiovascular disease events. However, there was no clear association between the annualised progression of these conventional risk factors in individuals with the risk of future clinical endpoints.

Aims: There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after 'recalibration', a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied. Methods and results: Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at 'high' 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over-predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29-39% of individuals aged ≥40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22-24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44-51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37-39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms. Conclusion: Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191172.].

Data sharing restrictions, availability and contacts by study. (PDF)

Forest plots of the HR of total mortality in group A (asymptomatic individuals with three or more CVD risk factors) with 95% Cls. Left panel: HR for total mortality per one SD of annual mean CCA-IMT change, adjusted for age, sex and average mean CCA-IMT (model 1). Right panel: HR for total mortality per one SD of average mean CCA-IMT, adjusted for age, sex and annual mean CCA-IMT change (model 1). (DOCX)

Distribution of average mean CCA-IMT, annual change of mean CCA-IMT, and crude event rates by cohort and subgroup. *mean CCA-IMT not available, maximal CCA-IMT used instead. &combined endpoint not available, total mortality used instead. (DOCX)

Meta-regression plots for the HR (combined endpoint) per SD of annual mean CCA-IMT change, by the year of the study start for group A cohorts. The size of each circle represents the precision of the log HR. Left panel: Model 1 (HR adjusted for age, sex, and average mean CCA-IMT): weighted regression line y = 7.07+0.004*x (p = 0.34). Right panel: Model 2 (HR adjusted for age, sex, average mean CCA-IMT and other CVD risk factors): weighted regression line y = -9.43+0.005*x (p = 0.32). (DOCX)

Flowchart on available studies. (DOCX)

Aims Carotid intima media thickness (CIMT) predicts cardiovascular (CVD) events, but the predictive value of CIMT change is debated. We assessed the relation between CIMT change and events in individuals at high cardiovascular risk. Methods and results From 31 cohorts with two CIMT scans (total n = 89070) on average 3.6 years apart and clinical follow-up, subcohorts were drawn: (A) individuals with at least 3 cardiovascular risk factors without previous CVD events, (B) individuals with carotid plaques without previous CVD events, and (C) individuals with previous CVD events. Cox regression models were fit to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of the combined endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke or vascular death) per standard deviation (SD) of CIMT change, adjusted for CVD risk factors. These HRs were pooled across studies. In groups A, B and C we observed 3483, 2845 and 1165 endpoint events, respectively. Average common CIMT was 0.79mm (SD 0.16mm), and annual common CIMT change was 0.01mm (SD 0.07mm), both in group A. The pooled HR per SD of annual common CIMT change (0.02 to 0.43mm) was 0.99 (95% confidence interval: 0.95–1.02) in group A, 0.98 (0.93–1.04) in group B, and 0.95 (0.89–1.04) in group C. The HR per SD of common CIMT (average of the first and the second CIMT scan, 0.09 to 0.75mm) was 1.15 (1.07–1.23) in group A, 1.13 (1.05–1.22) in group B, and 1.12 (1.05–1.20) in group C. Conclusions We confirm that common CIMT is associated with future CVD events in individuals at high risk. CIMT change does not relate to future event risk in high-risk individuals.