Key result
Cluster 1 phenotype linked to better risk factor control and slower SCORE progression vs. cluster 2.
Why the study?
Identifying cardiovascular risk factor profiles is essential for cardiovascular disease prevention and personalized preventive approaches.
Does the joint trajectory of cardiovascular risk factors identify specific phenotypic clusters of workers that differ in their cardiovascular risk progression over time?
Cohort (n=4,147)
No
Does the joint trajectory of cardiovascular risk factors identify specific phenotypic clusters of workers that differ in their cardiovascular risk progression over time?
Clustering patients based on the longitudinal trajectories of multiple cardiovascular risk factors allows for the identification of subgroups that may benefit from more intensive, personalized preventive strategies.
Trajectory clustering may stratify workers by CV risk progression; extends prior approaches but leaves open whether it guides prevention.
The identification of the cardiovascular risk factor (CVRF) profile of individual patients is key to the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and the development of personalized preventive approaches. Using data from annual medical examinations in a cohort of workers, the aim of the study was to characterize the evolution of CVRFs and the CVD risk score (SCORE) over three time points between 2009 and 2017. For descriptive analyses, mean, standard deviation, and quartile values were used for quantitative variables, and percentages for categorical ones. Cluster analysis was performed using the Kml3D package in R software. This algorithm, which creates distinct groups based on similarities in the evolution of variables of interest measured at different time points, divided the cohort into 2 clusters. Cluster 1 comprised younger workers with lower mean body mass index, waist circumference, blood glucose values, and SCORE, and higher mean HDL cholesterol values. Cluster 2 had the opposite characteristics. In conclusion, it was found that, over time, subjects in cluster 1 showed a higher improvement in CVRF control and a lower increase in their SCORE, compared with cluster 2. The identification of subjects included in these profiles could facilitate the development of better personalized medical approaches to CVD preventive measures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Castel-Feced et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular risk factors (n=4,147). Cluster 1 trajectory (younger, lower baseline BMI, waist circumference, glucose, and SCORE, with higher HDL) vs. Cluster 2 trajectory (older, opposite risk factor baseline) was evaluated on Evolution of cardiovascular risk factors and CVD risk score (SCORE) over time. Subjects in cluster 1 showed a higher improvement in cardiovascular risk factor control and a lower increase in their 10-year SCORE over time compared with subjects in cluster 2.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: