Abstract 4357288: Comparative evaluation of a proteomic cardiovascular risk assessment tool to coronary artery calcium score

J Jessica Chadwick M Meredith Carpenter M Michael Hinterberg (Standard Biotools, Bailey, Colorado, United States) E Emma Troth (Standard Biotools, Bailey, Colorado, United States) M Matthew Budoff (The Lundquist Institute, Torrance, California, United States) P Philip Greenland (FEINBERG SCH OF MEDICINE, Chicago, Illinois, United States) R Rajeev Malhotra (Department of Medicine, Cardiology Division, Massachusetts General Brigham Heart and Vascular Institute, Boston (I.L., T.I., L.P.C., I.G., J.C., R.M., G.D.L.).) C Clint Miller (University Of Virginia, Charlottesvle, Virginia, United States) J Jerome Rotter (The Lundquist Institute, Torrance, California, United States) K Kent Taylor (The Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, United States) P Peter Ganz

Abstract

Background: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores are a powerful measure for assessing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) burden and guiding preventative treatments. However, CAC does not predict systemic risk of cardiovascular events, and many pharmacotherapies have broader health benefits beyond coronary event risk predicted by CAC. Hypothesis: The goal of this study was to determine whether a previously validated proteomic test for predicting a broad composite of four-year cardiovascular (CV) events could enhance the prognostic utility of CAC and potentially improve allocation of drugs that optimize metabolic health with broad benefits beyond the burden of ASCVD. Methods: We used a 27-plasma protein CV risk test (RCVR; a SomaScan TM derived proteomics risk score) to predict the four-year risk of a CV event (myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, heart failure hospitalization, death) in 2,122 participants from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis observational cohort with elevated CV risk factors and compared predictive results to CAC Agatston scores. Discriminatory performance was assessed using C-Index and 4-year AUC. Cox Proportional Hazard (CoxPH) ratios were calculated for composite CV and ASCVD (myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, stroke, coronary heart disease death) outcomes and individual event types and compared using z-statistics. Changes in RCVR and CAC from baseline to visit 5 in CV event vs. event free participants were assessed using 2-tailed paired t-tests. CoxPH regression models of CV event status distributed by RCVR, CAC, and clinically relevant co-factors were evaluated for performance relative to individual models. Results: Both RCVR and CAC were strong predictors of 4-year CV risk, but compared to CAC, RCVR had a significantly higher C-index (0.68 (0.65-0.70) vs. 0.63 (0.60-0.65)) and CoxPH ratios for the CV composite outcome (p<0.001), all cause death (p<0.001) and heart failure (p=0.015). A combined CoxPH model of RCVR + CAC + AGE had a significantly higher 4-year AUC (0.72, p<0.05) and C-Index (0.71, p<0.05) than RCVR and CAC only models. Both the RCVR and CAC scores were sensitive to change in response to an adverse event, but RCVR was able to distinguish between event and event free participants with a CAC score of 0. Conclusion: Together, these results highlight the potential utility of prognostic protein testing as a novel, complementary tool for CV risk assessment.

Article Details

Journal Circulation
Volume / Issue Vol. 152, Issue Suppl_3
Published November 04, 2025
ISSN 0009-7322
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Circulation

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0009-7322 Health Sciences

Authors (11)

J

Jessica Chadwick

M

Meredith Carpenter

M

Michael Hinterberg

Standard Biotools, Bailey, Colorado, United States

E

Emma Troth

Standard Biotools, Bailey, Colorado, United States

M

Matthew Budoff

The Lundquist Institute, Torrance, California, United States

P

Philip Greenland

FEINBERG SCH OF MEDICINE, Chicago, Illinois, United States

R

Rajeev Malhotra

Department of Medicine, Cardiology Division, Massachusetts General Brigham Heart and Vascular Institute, Boston (I.L., T.I., L.P.C., I.G., J.C., R.M., G.D.L.).

C

Clint Miller

University Of Virginia, Charlottesvle, Virginia, United States

J

Jerome Rotter

The Lundquist Institute, Torrance, California, United States

K

Kent Taylor

The Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, United States

P

Peter Ganz