Cargando…

Does allostatic load predict incidental coronary events differently among sexes?

BACKGROUND: One measure to quantify the degree of dysregulation is allostatic load (AL). Typically, AL incorporates information on diverse biomarkers and is associated with health outcomes such as cardiovascular diseases or the incidence of coronary events (C-E). AIMS: This study investigates the pr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Demirer, Ibrahim, Schmidt, Börge, Schramm, Sara, Erbel, Raimund, Jöckel, Karl-Heinz, Pförtner, Timo-Kolja
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9216708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35757664
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpnec.2021.100089
_version_ 1784731481120178176
author Demirer, Ibrahim
Schmidt, Börge
Schramm, Sara
Erbel, Raimund
Jöckel, Karl-Heinz
Pförtner, Timo-Kolja
author_facet Demirer, Ibrahim
Schmidt, Börge
Schramm, Sara
Erbel, Raimund
Jöckel, Karl-Heinz
Pförtner, Timo-Kolja
author_sort Demirer, Ibrahim
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: One measure to quantify the degree of dysregulation is allostatic load (AL). Typically, AL incorporates information on diverse biomarkers and is associated with health outcomes such as cardiovascular diseases or the incidence of coronary events (C-E). AIMS: This study investigates the predictive performance of different AL scoring methods on the incidence of coronary events (C-E). This study also elaborates sex differences in the baseline risks of C-E and the AL associated risks of C-E. DESIGN: Longitudinal data analysis of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study (Risk Factors, Evaluation of Coronary Calcification, and Lifestyle) of 4327 participants free of C-E at study baseline aged 45–75. The data contains over 13 biomarkers measuring AL. METHODS: After conducting multiple imputations on missing values on AL for 826 participants, the analysis sample consisted of N = 4327 participants. We applied the two most commonly used methods of AL scoring AL (count-based and Z-score) and a recently developed logistic regression weighting method (LRM) approach. Cox regression was used to predict the incidence of C-E for each AL score. Results were estimated without (M0) and with (M1) covariate adjustment, and in a final model (M2), with an interaction between AL and sex. RESULTS: We found no violation of the proportional hazard assumption and significant differences in the survival curves between the sexes for C-E (Log-rank test: prob. > Chi(2) = 0.000). In M0, all AL-scoring methods predicted C-E significantly, with the LRM based AL-score having the best performance (hazard ratio = 3.133; CI: [2.630, 3.732]; Somer's D = 0.717). After covariate inclusion, differences between the scoring methods levelled, though the count-based method and LRM performed better than the Z-scoring method. The interaction analysis in M2 showed a significant multiplicative interaction for the count-based method (1.254; [1.066, 1.475]) and for the LRM (1.746; [1.132, 2.692]). The additive relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI) measure was negative for the count-based method (RERI = −1.967; [-3.778; −0.156]) and the LRM (RERI = −1.909 [-3.910; 0.091]), indicating subadditivity. CONCLUSION: AL scores are suitable for predicting C-E. Differences between the AL-scoring algorithms were only present after including interactions. We value the count-based method as suitable for clinical practice since its calculation is relatively simple, and performance was among the best. Interaction analysis revealed that despite strong sex differences in baseline C-E, the effect of AL is more pronounced for females at high levels of AL; thus, females could benefit more from a potential intervention on AL. We suggest further investigation of sex differences concerning the mediation by physiological and psychological intermediates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9216708
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92167082022-06-24 Does allostatic load predict incidental coronary events differently among sexes? Demirer, Ibrahim Schmidt, Börge Schramm, Sara Erbel, Raimund Jöckel, Karl-Heinz Pförtner, Timo-Kolja Compr Psychoneuroendocrinol Clinical Science BACKGROUND: One measure to quantify the degree of dysregulation is allostatic load (AL). Typically, AL incorporates information on diverse biomarkers and is associated with health outcomes such as cardiovascular diseases or the incidence of coronary events (C-E). AIMS: This study investigates the predictive performance of different AL scoring methods on the incidence of coronary events (C-E). This study also elaborates sex differences in the baseline risks of C-E and the AL associated risks of C-E. DESIGN: Longitudinal data analysis of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study (Risk Factors, Evaluation of Coronary Calcification, and Lifestyle) of 4327 participants free of C-E at study baseline aged 45–75. The data contains over 13 biomarkers measuring AL. METHODS: After conducting multiple imputations on missing values on AL for 826 participants, the analysis sample consisted of N = 4327 participants. We applied the two most commonly used methods of AL scoring AL (count-based and Z-score) and a recently developed logistic regression weighting method (LRM) approach. Cox regression was used to predict the incidence of C-E for each AL score. Results were estimated without (M0) and with (M1) covariate adjustment, and in a final model (M2), with an interaction between AL and sex. RESULTS: We found no violation of the proportional hazard assumption and significant differences in the survival curves between the sexes for C-E (Log-rank test: prob. > Chi(2) = 0.000). In M0, all AL-scoring methods predicted C-E significantly, with the LRM based AL-score having the best performance (hazard ratio = 3.133; CI: [2.630, 3.732]; Somer's D = 0.717). After covariate inclusion, differences between the scoring methods levelled, though the count-based method and LRM performed better than the Z-scoring method. The interaction analysis in M2 showed a significant multiplicative interaction for the count-based method (1.254; [1.066, 1.475]) and for the LRM (1.746; [1.132, 2.692]). The additive relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI) measure was negative for the count-based method (RERI = −1.967; [-3.778; −0.156]) and the LRM (RERI = −1.909 [-3.910; 0.091]), indicating subadditivity. CONCLUSION: AL scores are suitable for predicting C-E. Differences between the AL-scoring algorithms were only present after including interactions. We value the count-based method as suitable for clinical practice since its calculation is relatively simple, and performance was among the best. Interaction analysis revealed that despite strong sex differences in baseline C-E, the effect of AL is more pronounced for females at high levels of AL; thus, females could benefit more from a potential intervention on AL. We suggest further investigation of sex differences concerning the mediation by physiological and psychological intermediates. Elsevier 2021-10-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9216708/ /pubmed/35757664 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpnec.2021.100089 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Clinical Science
Demirer, Ibrahim
Schmidt, Börge
Schramm, Sara
Erbel, Raimund
Jöckel, Karl-Heinz
Pförtner, Timo-Kolja
Does allostatic load predict incidental coronary events differently among sexes?
title Does allostatic load predict incidental coronary events differently among sexes?
title_full Does allostatic load predict incidental coronary events differently among sexes?
title_fullStr Does allostatic load predict incidental coronary events differently among sexes?
title_full_unstemmed Does allostatic load predict incidental coronary events differently among sexes?
title_short Does allostatic load predict incidental coronary events differently among sexes?
title_sort does allostatic load predict incidental coronary events differently among sexes?
topic Clinical Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9216708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35757664
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpnec.2021.100089
work_keys_str_mv AT demireribrahim doesallostaticloadpredictincidentalcoronaryeventsdifferentlyamongsexes
AT schmidtborge doesallostaticloadpredictincidentalcoronaryeventsdifferentlyamongsexes
AT schrammsara doesallostaticloadpredictincidentalcoronaryeventsdifferentlyamongsexes
AT erbelraimund doesallostaticloadpredictincidentalcoronaryeventsdifferentlyamongsexes
AT jockelkarlheinz doesallostaticloadpredictincidentalcoronaryeventsdifferentlyamongsexes
AT pfortnertimokolja doesallostaticloadpredictincidentalcoronaryeventsdifferentlyamongsexes