This Article Free upon publication Full Text Full Text (PDF) Correction (v119,pe606) All Versions of this Article: 119/17/2408    most recent CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192278v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hlatky, M. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hlatky, M. A. Related Collections Health policy and outcome research Primary prevention Risk Factors Other diagnostic testing Epidemiology

(Circulation. 2009;119:2408-2416.)
© 2009 American Heart Association, Inc.

AHA Scientific Statement

Criteria for Evaluation of Novel Markers of Cardiovascular Risk

A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Mark A. Hlatky, MD, FAHA, Chair; Philip Greenland, MD, FAHA, Co-Chair; Donna K. Arnett, PhD, FAHA; Christie M. Ballantyne, MD; Michael H. Criqui, MD, FAHA; Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS; Alan S. Go, MD; Frank E. Harrell, Jr, PhD; Yuling Hong, MD, PhD, FAHA; Barbara V. Howard, PhD, FAHA; Virginia J. Howard, PhD, FAHA; Priscilla Y. Hsue, MD; Christopher M. Kramer, MD, FAHA; Joseph P. McConnell, PhD; Sharon-Lise T. Normand, PhD; Christopher J. O'Donnell, MD; Sidney C. Smith, Jr, MD, FAHA; Peter W.F. Wilson, MD, on behalf of the American Heart Association Expert Panel on Subclinical Atherosclerotic Diseases and Emerging Risk Factors and the Stroke Council

There is increasing interest in utilizing novel markers of cardiovascular disease risk, and consequently, there is a need to assess the value of their use. This scientific statement reviews current concepts of risk evaluation and proposes standards for the critical appraisal of risk assessment methods. An adequate evaluation of a novel risk marker requires a sound research design, a representative at-risk population, and an adequate number of outcome events. Studies of a novel marker should report the degree to which it adds to the prognostic information provided by standard risk markers. No single statistical measure provides all the information needed to assess a novel marker, so measures of both discrimination and accuracy should be reported. The clinical value of a marker should be assessed by its effect on patient management and outcomes. In general, a novel risk marker should be evaluated in several phases, including initial proof of concept, prospective validation in independent populations, documentation of incremental information when added to standard risk markers, assessment of effects on patient management and outcomes, and ultimately, cost-effectiveness.

Key Words: AHA Scientific Statements • risk assessment • models, statistical • evaluation studies

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Bolliger, M. D. Seeberger, and M. Filipovic Pre-operative cardiac risk assessment in noncardiac surgery: are natriuretic peptides the magic bullet? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 20, 2009; 54(17): 1607 - 1608. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. P. Giugliano and E. Braunwald The Year in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 13, 2009; 54(16): 1544 - 1555. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. O. Bonow Should Coronary Calcium Screening Be Used in Cardiovascular Prevention Strategies? N. Engl. J. Med., September 3, 2009; 361(10): 990 - 997. [Full Text] [PDF]

				W.H. W. Tang Enhancing the Prognostic Value of Cardiac Imaging With Multimodal Risk Assessment J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img., September 1, 2009; 2(9): 1100 - 1102. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. M. Dunlay, Y. Gerber, S. A. Weston, J. M. Killian, M. M. Redfield, and V. L. Roger Prognostic Value of Biomarkers in Heart Failure: Application of Novel Methods in the Community Circ Heart Fail, September 1, 2009; 2(5): 393 - 400. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Gibbons and T. C. Gerber Calcium Scoring With Computed Tomography: What Is the Radiation Risk? Arch Intern Med, July 13, 2009; 169(13): 1185 - 1187. [Full Text] [PDF]