Translational phases of evidence in a prognostic biomarker: a systematic review and meta-analysis of natriuretic peptides and the prognosis of stable coronary disease
- Shailen Sutaria1,
- Peter Philipson1,
- Natalie K Fitzpatrick1,
- Keith Abrams2,
- Santiago G Moreno3,
- Adam Timmis4,
- Aroon D Hingorani1,
- Harry Hemingway1
- 1Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
- 2Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
- 3Department of Evaluation of Innovation and New Technologies, Fundació Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
- 4Barts and the London Medical School, London, UK
- Correspondence to Dr S Sutaria, University College London, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, 1–19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
Contributors SS and NFK were involved in study searches and data collection. SS wrote the first draft, with further contribution from all authors. PP was involved in the statistical analysis. KA and SGM were involved in analysing and adjusting for publication bias. AT, ADH and HH contributed to the original idea and design.
- Received 12 August 2011
- Revised 17 January 2012
- Accepted 30 January 2012
- Published Online First 3 March 2012
Context Translational phases of study are important in evaluating whether a prognostic biomarker is likely to have impact on clinical practice but systematic evaluations of such evidence are lacking.
Objective To systematically evaluate the clinical usefulness of the published literature on the association of natriuretic peptides (NP) and prognosis in stable coronary disease.
Data sources MEDLINE and EMBASE until the end of July 2009, without restrictions.
Study selection Prospective studies measuring NP in people with stable coronary disease who were followed-up for all cause mortality, coronary or cardiovascular events.
Data extraction Two independent reviewers categorised studies according to the American Heart Association phase of study, and extracted data according to the study reporting guidelines from the American Heart Association and REMARK.
Results Systematic review of 19 studies found 17 which were phase 2, reporting an association between NP and events, two phase 3 studies, statistically examining the incremental prognostic value of NP, but no studies assessing whether NP predicted risk sufficiently to change management (phase 4), improve clinical outcomes (phase 5) or cost effectiveness (phase 6). No study referred to a statistical analytic protocol. Meta-analysis of 14 studies, reporting 18 841 patients and 1655 outcome events, found an RR for events of 3.28 (95% CI 2.45 to 4.38) comparing top versus bottom third of NP. This effect was 26% lower among the five studies which adjusted for a priori confounders (age, sex, renal function and left ventricular function) and 38% lower when adjusting for publication bias (Egger's p=0.001).
Conclusion The unbiased strength of association of NP with prognosis in stable coronary disease is unclear, and there is a lack of reports of clinically useful measures of prediction and discrimination or studies relating NP levels to clinical decision making. The available literature is confined to early phases and is of limited clinical usefulness.
Funding No specific funding was obtained. SS was supported by a NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship.
Competing interests ADH has received honoraria for speaking at educational meetings on risk prediction, most of which have been donated to charity. He has provided non-remunerated advice to GSK and London Genetics. ADH is the principal investigator of an MRC Research Grant for which Pfizer Inc is a co-sponsor. He is a member of the editorial board of the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, a BMJ publication.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.