Key result
Doubling follow-up sTNF-R1 is linked to ~3-fold higher mortality risk, unlike baseline levels.
Why the study?
Single measurements of higher sTNF-R1 levels are linked to mortality, but the temporal dynamics of sTNF-R1 concentrations and their relation with mortality remained unclear.
Does the follow-up measurement of sTNF-R1 predict all-cause and cardiovascular mortality better than baseline measurements in a general population cohort?
Cohort (n=1,408)
No
Does the follow-up measurement of sTNF-R1 predict all-cause and cardiovascular mortality better than baseline measurements in a general population cohort?
In the general population, the most recent measurement of sTNF-R1, rather than its change from baseline, is a strong independent predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Follow-up sTNF-R1 may refine mortality risk assessment beyond baseline; hypothesis-generating, prospective validation required before practice change.
AIMS: Single measurements of higher levels of soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor I (sTNF-R1) have been shown to be associated with increased risk of mortality. However, up to date, little is known about the underlying temporal dynamics of sTNF-R1 concentrations and their relation with mortality. We aimed to characterize the effect of changes in sTNFR-1 levels on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, independent from other established risk factors for mortality, including other inflammatory markers. METHODS: We used data of the population based cohort study CARLA and included 1408 subjects with sTNF-R1 measured at baseline (2002-2006) and first follow-up (2007-2010). Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association of baseline and follow-up sTNF-R1 measurements with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality during ~10 years since the first follow-up after adjusting for relevant confounders. RESULTS: Based on 211 deaths among 1408 subjects, per each doubling of the baseline sTNF-R1, the risk of all-cause mortality was increased by about 30% (Hazard ratio 1.28, 95% Confidence Interval 0.6-2.7), while per each doubling of the follow-up level of sTNF-R1 mortality was 3-fold (3.11, 1.5-6.5) higher in a model including both measurements and adjusting for confounders. The results were mainly related to the cardiovascular mortality (5.9, 2.1-16.8 per each doubling of follow up sTNF-R1 value). CONCLUSION: Solely the follow-up value, rather than its change from baseline, predicted future mortality. Thus, while sTNF-R1 levels are associated with mortality, particularly cardiovascular, over a long-time period in the general population, if they change, the earlier measurements play no or little role.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hassan et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in General population (n=1,408). Follow-up sTNF-R1 level (per doubling) vs. Baseline sTNF-R1 level was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 3.11, 95% CI 1.5-6.5). Per each doubling of the follow-up level of sTNF-R1, the risk of all-cause mortality increased 3-fold (HR 3.11), whereas baseline measurements played little to no role.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: