Why the study?
Are higher levels of soluble endothelial protein C receptor (sEPCR) and the PROCR 6963A/G polymorphism associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism in adults aged >=45 years?
Are higher levels of soluble endothelial protein C receptor (sEPCR) and the PROCR 6963A/G polymorphism associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism in adults aged >=45 years?
Neither sEPCR levels nor the PROCR 6963A/G polymorphism are associated with an overall increased risk of venous thromboembolism in a prospective cohort.
Does not support sEPCR testing for VTE risk assessment; leaves open targeted evaluation in high-risk subgroups.
Prior case-control studies reported that levels of the soluble form of the endothelial protein C receptor (sEPCR) were strongly controlled by the PROCR 6963A/G polymorphism and higher levels were a risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). We sought to prospectively examine the association of sEPCR and the 6963A/G polymorphism with the incidence of VTE. The Longitudinal Investigation of Thromboembolism Etiology (LITE) pooled data from the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study on men and women aged > or =45 years. A nested case-control study of 458 incident VTE and 1038 controls was performed. sEPCR levels were distributed trimodally according to 6963A/G polymorphism. Adjusting for age, sex and race, there was no overall association between sEPCR level and VTE: odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval] for highest versus lowest quartile = 1.17[0.86-1.59]. However, higher sEPCR was associated with VTE in non-whites (OR = 1.84[1.05-3.22]) and women (OR = 1.51[1.01-2.26]). The 6963A/G polymorphism was not associated with VTE risk (OR = 0.93[0.70-1.25]). In conclusion, sEPCR levels and the PROCR 6963A/G polymorphism were not associated overall with increased risk of VTE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yamagishi et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: