This is a cache of https://science.slashdot.org/story/24/08/31/2217244/a-simple-blood-test-predicts-a-persons-heart-disease-risk-30-years-out-study-finds. It is a snapshot of the page at 2024-09-02T01:11:54.756+0000.
A Simple Blood Test Predicts a Person's Heart Disease Risk 30 Years Out, Study Finds - Slashdot

Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Medicine

A Simple Blood Test Predicts a Person's Heart Disease Risk 30 Years Out, Study Finds (nbcnews.com) 23

An anonymous Slashdot reader shared this report from NBC News: A new approach to a routine blood test could predict a person's 30-year risk of heart disease, research published Saturday in the New England Journal of Medicine found.

Doctors have long assessed their patients' risk for cardiovascular disease by using a blood test to look at cholesterol levels, focusing particularly on LDL or "bad" cholesterol. But limiting blood testing to just cholesterol misses important — and usually silent — risk factors, experts say... Lead study author Dr. Paul Ridker, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and his team found that in addition to LDL cholesterol, two other markers — a type of fat in the blood called lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a), and an indicator of inflammation — are important predictors of a person's risk of heart attack, stroke and coronary heart disease...

In the study, the researchers analyzed data from nearly 30,000 U.S. women who were part of the Women's Health Study. On average, the women were 55 years old when they enrolled in the years 1992 through 1995. About 13% — roughly 3,600 participants — had either a heart attack or stroke, had surgery to fix a narrowed or blocked artery, or died from heart disease over the 30-year follow-up period... All of the women had blood tests done at the beginning of the study to measure their LDL cholesterol, Lp(a) and C-reactive protein levels, a marker of inflammation in the body. These measurements, individually as well as together, appeared to predict a woman's heart health over the next three decades, the study found.

Women with the highest levels of LDL cholesterol had a 36% higher risk for heart disease compared with those with the lowest levels. The highest levels of Lp(a) indicated a 33% elevated risk, and those with the highest levels of CRP were 70% more at risk for heart disease. When the three were looked at together, women who had the highest levels were 1.5 times more likely to have a stroke and over three times more likely to develop coronary heart disease over the next 30 years compared with women with the lowest levels.

All of the markers have been individually linked to higher risk of heart disease, but "all three represent different biological processes. They tell us why someone is actually at risk," Ridker said.

A Simple Blood Test Predicts a Person's Heart Disease Risk 30 Years Out, Study Finds

Comments Filter:
  • LDL, Lp(a), and CRP have been used for years for screening. It seems what's new here is the idea that it screens that far out. They didn't seem to invent a new miraculous lab test or something here.
    • New title (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bagofbeans ( 567926 ) on Sunday September 01, 2024 @01:04PM (#64753564)

      "A Simple Blood Test Raises People's Insurance With No Recourse"

      Even if the test is flawed, how can a victim prove it?

      • Not any more, due to Obamacare. It is now illegal to charge people more because of pre-existing conditions.
    • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

      But most Dr that specializes in cholesterol tests will tell you that LDL by itself is worthless because not all low density lipids are harmful. They will say you actually need a more expensive particle test to know if you actually have a dangerous amount of risky lipids to say for certain. There are also some harmful high density lipids as well. Too much Omega-6 can be pretty harmful and a balanced 3-to-6 ratio is preferred. One (3) reduces inflammation while the other (6) causes it.

      • Most doctors ordering these tests for anything other than just screening would order a cholesterol profile (which is usually LDL, HDL, and calculated LDL/HDL ratio), and total cholesterol. A more comprehensive profile would be LDL, HDL, cholesterol, VLDL, triglycerides, Lp(a),ApoB, and a hs-CRP. But the OP point remains that these are tests that are (should be) normally ordered as part of a full screening. Of course, you also want thyroid tests, A1c, etc.

        Unfortunately, sometimes with the HMOs out there it'

        • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

          I’ve seen the way the claims pay out. Most of the lipid profile test only pay three or four dollars per test. You can go to the Kroger pharmacy and get them done and the results come back in like 20 minutes. They are only expensive because some jackass wants to overcharge for them. I’m sure at one time it took a team of scientist and microscopes to do this crap but advances in technology have made them not so expensive. Sadly laboratories want to hold on pricing from a more complicated method an

          • Re:What's new? (Score:5, Informative)

            by Randseed ( 132501 ) on Sunday September 01, 2024 @02:27PM (#64753726)

            Warning: Rant incoming.

            You're completely right. The entire thing is a bit more complicated. (If you think I disagree with you, I don't. Keep reading.) If I run a doctor's office and I'm the only doctor there, I need to lease the property, get the equipment, hire at least a receptionist and a medical assistant, have some way to replace them on short notice if one or both decide not to show up, pay the utilities, and pay for insurance. That's a minimum. Not included in that is all the bullshit put on the doctor personally like malpractice insurance, licensing fees, fees for professional organizations(*) that he may not even want to be a part of, certification fees(**), and so on. So like any business, there is a hidden overhead to the entire thing, and with medicine a lot of it isn't what you'd necessarily expect, because the doctor, who is the business really, has a load of crap thrown on him too.

            So then someone comes in. If they want to pay cash, great. The doctor cuts them some kind of deal (if he's decent). This is because if you come in and claim insurance of any kind, including Medicaid or Medicare, there's a large hidden cost in the background there too. So now the doctor has to either hire his own billers, or more likely contract out to some agency that is going to charge a monthly fee and take a certain percentage of whatever he gets back. If the doctor charges $100 for something to an insurance company, there are a few things that go on. He may get $100, but could he have collected $200 instead? They may only pay some percentage of what he charges up to some maximum (probably most common) so he only gets $60, where if he charged $500 he might get $200. This sick game goes on and on.

            So in a lot of ways, it's like taking your car into the mechanic. The mechanic has to diagnose the car, which isn't free. Then he presents you with an estimate. You take the estimate and he works on the car. It takes $x in parts. But most of the cost is $y in labor. During the entire process, something else comes up and he has to address another problem so he calls you. You agree to pay $z extra for extra parts and labor. There's always the possibility that there's another problem that didn't present itself and comes up later. People understand this (mostly) with cars, but with healthcare they sue the doctor five years later because they came in for an ingrown toenail and the next week were diagnosed with type II diabetes.

            The entire healthcare system is broken. We all know that. I've had to argue with insurance companies about all sorts of stuff. But you still get the person who comes in and says that they want some random test that doesn't affect their outcome at all. When you tell them that it isn't medically indicated and the insurance won't cover it, they inevitably say "Oh, I'll pay for it." The doctor explains again that it isn't necessary, but they start looking like they'd be litigious. So the doctor orders the test and covers himself. Goes great until they get the bill from the imaging company. Then they're slapped with a $4000 bill for a completely unnecessary MRI that it's documented that they demanded despite medical advice to the contrary, and they start spewing complaints which are warrantless, etc. (That's where the doctor's malpractice comes in again, to defend against stupid complaints. You're going to get a lawyer every time, who is going to fleece the insurance company for no less than $8000 to handle it. This raises everyone's insurance rates... wash, rinse, repeat.)

            If the average person knew just how screwed up the American healthcare system was, they would riot. That's because it isn't just the normal level of screwness. It's epic. It's a pyramid. At the bottom, of course, you have the patients. Then you have the "providers" (doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants). Then you have the insurance companies, etc., and at the top the lawyers.

            I've seen it on both sides. Recently I had an accident in my house and fell. I briefly lost consciousness. I wound up

            • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

              I like that you used the car repair example. There is a book that says for a given repair, you can only charge X number of hours in labor. Thats how insurance works too. For every CPT code there is an allowable contracted amount. Out of all the healthcare systems out there, I have decided the French method is the fairest from preventing abuse and misuse. They made their list of maximum amounts for every procedure. The government pays 70% and you pay 30%. The 30% serves as a deterrent so people don’t o

            • Thank you.

              I can't count the number of times I have read a comment here about medical costs and bills and doctors charges - and then wanted to write an explanatory comment like you just did. But, then I get lazy.

              But, you wrote it.
              I hope others now understand how little of the money they spend goes for the true direct service versus add-on "taxes" so that others can suck money out of the system.
              When people read that American health care costs ## trillions of dollars, they do not realize that that includes ne

  • A lot of medical stuff filtering through the pop media seems to be mentioning long term low-grade inflammation as a key indicator, and we've even had one study showing that suppressing that extends lifespan significantly in lab animals.

    Cool. Now we need to figure out why the human body so often ends up in a state where it is triggering a minor inflammation response for long periods and target that (the cause, rather than the symptom that causes other issues).

    • It's another non-specific term, like "toxins" or "natural", and the proponents of the "inflammation" hypothesis, when put under the gun, are never able to actually articulate what specific type of inflammation they're actually talking about or what the cause is.
    • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

      The short answer is omega-6 causes inflammation and our diet is full of it. The receptor sites for omega-3 and omega-6 are the same sites. When you have too much omega six, you displace the omega-3. One very simple observation this this is occurring in your body is dry eyes. And sometimes dry lips. One of the easiest, but not so pleasant cures for dry eyes is to take 4g or 4000 mg of omega-3 per day. But those fish burps are not pleasant. If you have deep pockets, eat a lot of salmon sashimi per day. That

      • A little research shows that both herring and sardines are a slightly better source of omega-3 than salmon. As half of my ancestry is from Lithuania, I love herring and this just gives me a good reason to eat more. I also happen to like sardines, but that's just a bonus.
        • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

          Not a huge fan but sounds like a good plan. Anchovies are the devil. Lol. I had a roommate once that love the damn things on pizza. It didn’t matter if it was on the pizza or in a cup next to the pizza all night long I had a sore throat and a cottonmouth. Those damn things just suck every ounce of fluid out of your body. It’s gotta be something in the skin or something like anchovie mist or something. As a prank in the navy, they sold sardines in the ship store. During high seas, we would go bu

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      Two answers in addition to the one's already posted.
      1) Fat tends to support inflammation, so if you have more fat on your body, you'll have a greater tendency to chronic inflammation.
      2) Getting older tends to support inflammation. So as you get older, you will have a greater tendency to chronic inflammation.

      I'll acknowledge that those are both rather useless answers, but they're also true. (I suspect that part of the "getting older" problem is the increased presence of senescent cells, but getting rid of

    • I gather from your comment that you are not in the medical fields, but yours is one of the best and most insightful in this thread. Others who responded to you - some not so much. I hope you don't mind some clarification.

      Seems like inflammation is the new thing.

      You are right. Inflammation is not new, but our appreciation of "chronic inflammation" as a vector of chronic disease has garnered a lot of attention over the past 20-30 years.

      A lot of medical stuff filtering through the pop media seems to be mentioning long term low-grade inflammation as a key indicator, and we've even had one study showing that suppressing that extends lifespan significantly in lab animals.

      It is not just the pop media. This has gotten a lot of attention in biomedical research and clinical care over

      • I am not sure how much of that I will permanently retain, but thank you for taking the time to post it.

  • Too much statistical information missing.

    Would like to know what fraction of women who had heart attacks and/or stroke had not tested positive for the risk factors (what is the rate of false negatives?), and also what fraction of the women who DIDN't have heart attacks or strokes had tested positive for the risk factors (what is the rate of false positives?).

  • Take 'antihistamines'... They just prevent our body from noticing all the histamine flying around. "Ignore the source of the problem... We're going to `solve` the symptom, and ignore the rest." I mean what else is profitable?

    Maybe old doctors aren't the best judge of what new doctors should learn and do?

    Maybe continuing education credits aren't enough to keep all doctors relevant?

    Maybe we don't teach enough about nutrition and diet to make MD's effective? ...

  • > highest levels of LDL

    Yeah - a heritable genetic disease causes super high cholesterol AND heart disease and both have a common cause.

    You need to take those out and do standard deviations on the normal.

    Almost everybody is below 300 but the disease group is 800+ .

    A high CRP indicates inflammation and almost always a high sugar diet and is comorbid with metabolic syndrome.

    This is all still slow-rolling the fact that sugar is harmful and fat is healthy and Big Sugar and USDA paid off Harvard scientists in

Nothing makes a person more productive than the last minute.

Working...