» Articles » PMID: 19364974

Criteria for Evaluation of Novel Markers of Cardiovascular Risk: a Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association

Abstract

There is increasing interest in utilizing novel markers of cardiovascular disease risk, and consequently, there is a need to assess the value of their use. This scientific statement reviews current concepts of risk evaluation and proposes standards for the critical appraisal of risk assessment methods. An adequate evaluation of a novel risk marker requires a sound research design, a representative at-risk population, and an adequate number of outcome events. Studies of a novel marker should report the degree to which it adds to the prognostic information provided by standard risk markers. No single statistical measure provides all the information needed to assess a novel marker, so measures of both discrimination and accuracy should be reported. The clinical value of a marker should be assessed by its effect on patient management and outcomes. In general, a novel risk marker should be evaluated in several phases, including initial proof of concept, prospective validation in independent populations, documentation of incremental information when added to standard risk markers, assessment of effects on patient management and outcomes, and ultimately, cost-effectiveness.

Citing Articles

MR-proANP levels in Acute ischemic stroke and clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Musmar B, Salim H, Mac Grory B, Musmar F, Spellicy S, Abdelgadir J Neurosurg Rev. 2024; 47(1):835.

PMID: 39496843 DOI: 10.1007/s10143-024-03073-w.


Association between pulse wave velocity and cerebral microbleeds: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lever-Megina C, Cavero-Redondo I, Saz-Lara A, Moreno-Herraiz N, Rescalvo-Fernandez E, Otero-Luis I Hypertens Res. 2024; 48(1):314-326.

PMID: 39448810 DOI: 10.1038/s41440-024-01963-6.


Disease prediction with multi-omics and biomarkers empowers case-control genetic discoveries in the UK Biobank.

Garg M, Karpinski M, Matelska D, Middleton L, Burren O, Hu F Nat Genet. 2024; 56(9):1821-1831.

PMID: 39261665 PMC: 11390475. DOI: 10.1038/s41588-024-01898-1.


UltraAIGenomics: Artificial Intelligence-Based Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment by Fusion of Ultrasound-Based Radiomics and Genomics Features for Preventive, Personalized and Precision Medicine: A Narrative Review.

Saba L, Maindarkar M, Johri A, Mantella L, Laird J, Khanna N Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 25(5):184.

PMID: 39076491 PMC: 11267214. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2505184.


Review of Laboratory Methods to Determine HDL and LDL Subclasses and Their Clinical Importance.

Chary A, Hedayati M Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 23(4):147.

PMID: 39076233 PMC: 11273998. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2304147.


References
1.
Pauker S, Kassirer J . The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med. 1980; 302(20):1109-17. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198005153022003. View

2.
Pencina M, DAgostino Sr R, DAgostino Jr R, Vasan R . Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med. 2007; 27(2):157-72. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2929. View

3.
Harrell Jr F, Lee K, Mark D . Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996; 15(4):361-87. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4. View

4.
von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, Gotzsche P, Vandenbroucke J . The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147(8):573-7. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010. View

5.
Hackam D, Anand S . Emerging risk factors for atherosclerotic vascular disease: a critical review of the evidence. JAMA. 2003; 290(7):932-40. DOI: 10.1001/jama.290.7.932. View