Blood protein scores add detail to cardiovascular risk estimates
A peer-reviewed cohort study developed blood protein scores linked to the progression of artery calcification and carotid plaques. Each score used 14 proteins, and subsequent testing connected them with cardiovascular events. The observational findings suggest additional risk information beyond traditional factors, with larger independent validation needed before clinical use.
Science··Morning
Blood measurements are linked to arterial changes
Blood proteins offered additional information about atherosclerosis before clinical symptoms in a peer-reviewed cohort study. Researchers examined 117 plasma proteins alongside imaging of coronary artery calcium and plaques in the carotid arteries, which supply the head. The community sample comprised 903 participants assessed approximately 6 years apart. Separate scores were developed for calcification and plaque progression, with 14 proteins in each score. This was an observational investigation of measurements and subsequent disease, rather than an experiment changing protein concentrations.[1]
Two scores capture part of the progression
The calcification score accounted for 17.1 per cent of variation in progression, compared with 18.4 per cent for the plaque score. A further sample contained 1835 participants in a case-cohort design. Its median follow-up of 10.4 years allowed researchers to assess cardiovascular events. Each standard-deviation increase in the scores was associated with event hazard ratios of 1.36 and 1.38. Higher scores accompanied higher event rates during follow-up. The observational design leaves the biological mechanisms unresolved.[1]
Risk categories change before clinical validation
Adding protein scores to traditional risk factors changed classification. Of those initially placed at intermediate risk, 18.6 per cent moved into a high-risk group whose 10-year event rate was 10.9 per cent. Moving between categories is a classification result. Clinical benefits of treatment selected through the scores were not measured. Larger, independent populations are needed to test the scores before routine use.[1]
