Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Progression as Surrogate Marker for Cardiovascular Risk: Meta-Analysis of 119 Clinical Trials Involving 100,667 Patients.
Peter Willeit,Lena Tschiderer,Elias Allara,Kathrin Reuber,Lisa Seekircher,Lu Gao,Ximing Liao,Eva Lonn,Hertzel C Gerstein,Salim Yusuf,Frank P Brouwers,Folkert W Asselbergs,Wiek van Gilst,Sigmund A Anderssen,Diederick E Grobbee,John J P Kastelein,Frank L J Visseren,George Ntaios,Apostolos I Hatzitolios,Christos Savopoulos,Pythia T Nieuwkerk,Erik Stroes,Matthew Walters,Peter Higgins,Jesse Dawson,Paolo Gresele,Giuseppe Guglielmini,Rino Migliacci,Marat Ezhov,Maya Safarova,Tatyana Balakhonova,Eiichi Sato,Mayuko Amaha,Tsukasa Nakamura,Kostas Kapellas,Lisa M Jamieson,Michael Skilton,James A Blumenthal,Alan Hinderliter,Andrew Sherwood,Patrick J Smith,Michiel A van Agtmael,Peter Reiss,Marit G A van Vonderen,Stefan Kiechl,Gerhard Klingenschmid,Matthias Sitzer,Coen D A Stehouwer,Heiko Uthoff,Zhi-Yong Zou,Ana R Cunha,Mario F Neves,Miles D Witham,Hyun-Woong Park,Moo-Sik Lee,Jang-Ho Bae,Enrique Bernal,Kristian Wachtell,Sverre E Kjeldsen,Michael H Olsen,David Preiss,Naveed Sattar,Edith Beishuizen,Menno V Huisman,Mark A Espeland,Caroline Schmidt,Stefan Agewall,Ercan Ok,Gülay Aşçi,Eric de Groot,Muriel P C Grooteman,Peter J Blankestijn,Michiel L Bots,Michael J Sweeting,Simon G Thompson,Matthias W Lorenz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046361
IF: 37.8
2020-01-01
Circulation
Abstract:Background: To quantify the association between effects of interventions on carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) progression and their effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Methods: We systematically collated data from randomized, controlled trials. cIMT was assessed as the mean value at the common-carotid-artery; if unavailable, the maximum value at the common-carotid-artery or other cIMT measures were used. The primary outcome was a combined CVD end point defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization procedures, or fatal CVD. We estimated intervention effects on cIMT progression and incident CVD for each trial, before relating the 2 using a Bayesian meta-regression approach. Results: We analyzed data of 119 randomized, controlled trials involving 100 667 patients (mean age 62 years, 42% female). Over an average follow-up of 3.7 years, 12 038 patients developed the combined CVD end point. Across all interventions, each 10 mu m/y reduction of cIMT progression resulted in a relative risk for CVD of 0.91 (95% Credible Interval, 0.87-0.94), with an additional relative risk for CVD of 0.92 (0.87-0.97) being achieved independent of cIMT progression. Taken together, we estimated that interventions reducing cIMT progression by 10, 20, 30, or 40 mu m/y would yield relative risks of 0.84 (0.75-0.93), 0.76 (0.67-0.85), 0.69 (0.59-0.79), or 0.63 (0.52-0.74), respectively. Results were similar when grouping trials by type of intervention, time of conduct, time to ultrasound follow-up, availability of individual-participant data, primary versus secondary prevention trials, type of cIMT measurement, and proportion of female patients. Conclusions: The extent of intervention effects on cIMT progression predicted the degree of CVD risk reduction. This provides a missing link supporting the usefulness of cIMT progression as a surrogate marker for CVD risk in clinical trials.