Circulating FABP4 Is a Prognostic Biomarker in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome but Not in Asymptomatic Individuals.

OBJECTIVE Blood-borne biomarkers reflecting atherosclerotic plaque burden have great potential to improve clinical management of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). APPROACH AND RESULTS Using data integration from gene expression profiling of coronary thrombi versus peripheral blood mononuclear cells and proteomic analysis of atherosclerotic plaque-derived secretomes versus healthy tissue secretomes, we identified fatty acid-binding protein 4 (FABP4) as a biomarker candidate for coronary artery disease. Its diagnostic and prognostic performance was validated in 3 different clinical settings: (1) in a cross-sectional cohort of patients with stable coronary artery disease, ACS, and healthy individuals (n=820), (2) in a nested case-control cohort of patients with ACS with 30-day follow-up (n=200), and (3) in a population-based nested case-control cohort of asymptomatic individuals with 5-year follow-up (n=414). Circulating FABP4 was marginally higher in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (24.9 ng/mL) compared with controls (23.4 ng/mL; P=0.01). However, elevated FABP4 was associated with adverse secondary cerebrovascular or cardiovascular events during 30-day follow-up after index ACS, independent of age, sex, renal function, and body mass index (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.5; P=0.02). Circulating FABP4 predicted adverse events with similar prognostic performance as the GRACE in-hospital risk score or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Finally, no significant difference between baseline FABP4 was found in asymptomatic individuals with or without coronary events during 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Circulating FABP4 may prove useful as a prognostic biomarker in risk stratification of patients with ACS.

PEDro or Cochrane to Assess the Quality of Clinical Trials? A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

OBJECTIVE There is debate on how the methodological quality of clinical trials should be assessed. We compared trials of physical therapy (PT) judged to be of adequate quality based on summary scores from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale with trials judged to be of adequate quality by Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria. DESIGN Meta-epidemiological study within Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. METHODS Meta-analyses of PT trials were identified in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. For each trial PeDro and Cochrane assessments were extracted from the PeDro and Cochrane databases. Adequate quality was defined as adequate generation of random sequence, concealment of allocation, and blinding of outcome assessors (Cochrane criteria) or as trials with a PEDro summary score ≥5 or ≥6 points. We combined trials of adequate quality using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS Forty-one Cochrane reviews and 353 PT trials were included. All meta-analyses included trials with PEDro scores ≥5, 37 (90.2%) included trials with PEDro scores ≥6 and only 22 (53.7%) meta-analyses included trials of adequate quality according to the Cochrane criteria. Agreement between PeDro and Cochrane was poor for PeDro scores of ≥5 points (kappa = 0.12; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.16) and slight for ≥6 points (kappa 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.32). When combining effect sizes of trials deemed to be of adequate quality according to PEDro or Cochrane criteria, we found that a substantial difference in the combined effect size (≥0.15) was evident in 9 (22%) out of the 41 meta-analyses for PEDro cutoff ≥5 and 10 (24%) for cutoff ≥6. CONCLUSIONS The PeDro and Cochrane approaches lead to different sets of trials of adequate quality, and different combined treatment estimates from meta-analyses of these trials. A consistent approach to assessing RoB in trials of physical therapy should be adopted.