Dataset Information

Clinical utility of a novel coronary heart disease risk-assessment test to further classify intermediate-risk patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Current coronary heart disease (CHD) risk assessments inadequately assess intermediate-risk patients, leaving many undertreated and vulnerable to heart attacks. A novel CHD risk-assessment (CHDRA) tool was developed for intermediate-risk stratification using biomarkers and established risk factors to significantly improve CHD risk discrimination.

Hypothesis

Physicians will change their treatment plan in response to more information about a patient's CHD risk level provided by the CHDRA test.

Methods

A Web-based survey of cardiology, internal medicine, family practice, and obstetrics/gynecology physicians (n = 206) was conducted to assess the CHDRA clinical impact. Each physician was shown 3 clinical vignettes representing community-based cohort participants randomly selected from 8 total vignettes. For each, the physicians assessed the individual's CHD risk and selected preferred therapies based on the individual's comorbidities, physical examination, and laboratory results. The individual's CHDRA score was then provided and the physicians were queried for changes to their initial treatment plans.

Results

After obtaining the CHDRA result, 70% of the physician responses indicated a change to the patient's treatment plan. The revised lipid-management plans agreed more often (74.6% of the time) with the current Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines than did the original plans (57.6% of the time). Most physicians (71.3%) agreed with the statement that the CHDRA result provided information that would impact their current treatment decisions.

Conclusions

The CHDRA test provided additional information to which physicians responded by more often applying appropriate therapy and actions aligned with guidelines, thus demonstrating the clinical utility of the test.

SUBMITTER: Solomon MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4231217 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many coronary heart disease (CHD) events occur in individuals classified as intermediate risk by commonly used assessment tools. Over half the individuals presenting with a severe cardiac event, such as myocardial infarction (MI), have at most one risk factor as included in the widely used Framingham risk assessment. Individuals classified as intermediate risk, who are actually at high risk, may not receive guideline recommended treatments. A clinically useful method for accurately predicting 5-year CHD risk among intermediate risk patients remains an unmet medical need. OBJECTIVE:This study sought to develop a CHD Risk Assessment (CHDRA) model that improves 5-year risk stratification among intermediate risk individuals. METHODS:Assay panels for biomarkers associated with atherosclerosis biology (inflammation, angiogenesis, apoptosis, chemotaxis, etc.) were optimized for measuring baseline serum samples from 1084 initially CHD-free Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project (PMRP) individuals. A multivariable Cox regression model was fit using the most powerful risk predictors within the clinical and protein variables identified by repeated cross-validation. The resulting CHDRA algorithm was validated in a Multiple-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) case-cohort sample. RESULTS:A CHDRA algorithm of age, sex, diabetes, and family history of MI, combined with serum levels of seven biomarkers (CTACK, Eotaxin, Fas Ligand, HGF, IL-16, MCP-3, and sFas) yielded a clinical net reclassification index of 42.7% (p?<?0.001) for MESA patients with a recalibrated Framingham 5-year intermediate risk level. Across all patients, the model predicted acute coronary events (hazard ratio?=?2.17, p?<?0.001), and remained an independent predictor after Framingham risk factor adjustments. LIMITATIONS:These include the slightly different event definition with the MESA samples and inability to include PMRP fatal CHD events. CONCLUSIONS:A novel risk score of serum protein levels plus clinical risk factors, developed and validated in independent cohorts, demonstrated clinical utility for assessing the true risk of CHD events in intermediate risk patients. Improved accuracy in cardiovascular risk classification could lead to improved preventive care and fewer deaths.

Project description:BackgroundMachine learning (ML) is increasingly used in research for subtype definition and risk prediction, particularly in cardiovascular diseases. No existing ML models are routinely used for cardiovascular disease management, and their phase of clinical utility is unknown, partly due to a lack of clear criteria. We evaluated ML for subtype definition and risk prediction in heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and atrial fibrillation (AF).MethodsFor ML studies of subtype definition and risk prediction, we conducted a systematic review in HF, ACS and AF, using PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science from January 2000 until December 2019. By adapting published criteria for diagnostic and prognostic studies, we developed a seven-domain, ML-specific checklist.ResultsOf 5918 studies identified, 97 were included. Across studies for subtype definition (n = 40) and risk prediction (n = 57), there was variation in data source, population size (median 606 and median 6769), clinical setting (outpatient, inpatient, different departments), number of covariates (median 19 and median 48) and ML methods. All studies were single disease, most were North American (n = 61/97) and only 14 studies combined definition and risk prediction. Subtype definition and risk prediction studies respectively had limitations in development (e.g. 15.0% and 78.9% of studies related to patient benefit; 15.0% and 15.8% had low patient selection bias), validation (12.5% and 5.3% externally validated) and impact (32.5% and 91.2% improved outcome prediction; no effectiveness or cost-effectiveness evaluations).ConclusionsStudies of ML in HF, ACS and AF are limited by number and type of included covariates, ML methods, population size, country, clinical setting and focus on single diseases, not overlap or multimorbidity. Clinical utility and implementation rely on improvements in development, validation and impact, facilitated by simple checklists. We provide clear steps prior to safe implementation of machine learning in clinical practice for cardiovascular diseases and other disease areas.