Lühmann Dagmar, Schramm Susanne, Raspe Heiner
Institut für Sozialmedizin, Lübeck, Deutschland.
GMS Health Technol Assess. 2007 Nov 9;3:Doc11.
There is an ongoing debate on the role of the cytotoxic aminoacid homocysteine as a causal risk factor for the development of coronary heart disease. Results from multiple case control-studies demonstrate, that there is a strong association between high plasma levels of homoysteine and prevalent coronary heart disease, independent of other classic risk factors. Furthermore, results from interventional studies point out that elevated plasma levels of homocysteine may effectively be lowered by the intake of folic acid and B vitamins. In order to use this information for the construction of a new preventive strategy against coronary heart disease, more information is needed: first, whether homocysteine actually is a causal risk factor with relevant predictive properties and, second, whether by lowering elevated homocysteine plasma concentrations cardiac morbidity can be reduced. Currently in Germany the determination of homocysteine plasma levels is reimbursed for by statutory health insurance in patients with manifest coronary heart disease and in patients at high risk for coronary heart disease but not for screening purposes in asymptomatic low risk populations. Against this background the following assessment sets out to answer four questions: Is an elevated homocysteine plasma concentration a strong, consistent and independent (of other classic risk factors) predictor for coronary heart disease?Does a therapeutic lowering of elevated homoysteine plasma levels reduce the risk of developing coronary events?What is the cost-effectiveness relationship of homocysteine testing for preventive purposes?Are there morally, socially or legally relevant aspects that should be considered when implementing a preventive strategy as outlined above?
In order to answer the first question, a systematic overview of prospective studies and metaanalyses of prospective studies is undertaken. Studies are included that analyse the association of homocysteine plasma levels with future cardiac events in probands without pre-existing coronary heart disease or in population-based samples. To answer the second question, a systematic overview of the literature is prepared, including randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that determine the effectiveness of homocysteine lowering therapy for the prevention of cardiac events. To answer the third question, economic evaluations of homocysteine testing for preventive purposes are analysed. Methodological quality of all materials is assessed by widely accepted instruments, evidence was summarized qualitatively.
For the first question eleven systematic reviews and 33 single studies (prospective cohort studies and nested case control studies) are available. Among the studies there is profound heterogeneity concercing study populations, classification of exposure (homocysteine measurements, units to express "elevation"), outcome definition and measurement, as well as controlling for confounding (qualitatively and quantitatively). Taking these heterogeneities into consideration, metaanalysis of single patient data with controlling for multiple confounders seems to be the only adequate method of summarizing the results of single studies. The only available analysis of this type shows, that in otherwise healthy people homocysteine plasma levels are only a very weak predictor of future cardiac events. The predictive value of the classical risk factors is much stronger. Among the studies that actively exclude patients with pre-existing coronary heart disease, there are no reports of an association between elevated homocysteine plasma levels and future cardiac events. Eleven randomized controlled trials (ten of them reported in one systematic review) are analysed in order to answer the second question. All trials include high risk populations for the development of (further) cardiac events. These studies also present with marked clinical heterogeneity: primarily concerning the average homocysteine plasma levels at baseline, type and mode of outcome measurement and as study duration. Except for one, none of the trials shows a risk reduction for cardiac events by lowering homocysteine plasma levels with folate or B vitamins. These results also hold for predefined subgroups with markedly elevated homocysteine plasma levels. In order to answer the third questions, three economic evaluations (modelling studies) of homocysteine testing are available. All economic models are based on the assumption that lowering homocysteine plasma levels results in risk reduction for cardiac events. Since this assumption is falsified by the results of the interventional studies cited above, there is no evidence left to answer the third question. Morally, socially or legally relevant aspects of homocysteine assessment are currently not being discussed in the scientific literature.
Many currently available pieces of evidence contradict a causal role of homocysteine in the pathogenesis of coronary heart disease. Arguing with the Bradford-Hill criteria at least the criterion of time-sequence (that exposure has to happen before the outcome is measured), the criterion of a strong and consistent association and the criterion of reversibility are not fulfilled. Therefore, homocysteine may, if at all, play a role as a risk indicator but not as risk factor. Furthermore, currently available evidence does not imply that for the prevention of coronary heart disease, knowledge of homocysteine plasma levels provides any information that supersedes the information gathered from the examination of classical risk factors. So, currently for the indication of prevention, there is no evidence that homocysteine testing provides any benefit. Against this background there is also no basis for cost-effectiveness calculations. Further basic research should clarify the discrepant results of case control studies and prospective studies. Maybe there is a third parameter (confounder) associated with homocysteine metabolism as well with coronary heart disease. Further epidemiological research could elucidate the role of elevated homocysteine plasma levels as a risk indicator or prognostic indicator in patients with pre-existing coronary heart disease taking into consideration the classical risk factors.
关于具有细胞毒性的氨基酸同型半胱氨酸作为冠心病发病的因果风险因素这一作用,目前仍存在争议。多项病例对照研究结果表明,高血浆同型半胱氨酸水平与现患冠心病之间存在强关联,且独立于其他经典风险因素。此外,干预性研究结果指出,摄入叶酸和B族维生素可有效降低血浆同型半胱氨酸水平。为了将该信息用于构建预防冠心病的新策略,还需要更多信息:首先,同型半胱氨酸是否真的是具有相关预测特性的因果风险因素;其次,降低升高的血浆同型半胱氨酸浓度是否能降低心脏发病率。目前在德国,法定医疗保险只为已确诊冠心病患者和冠心病高危患者报销血浆同型半胱氨酸水平的检测费用,而不为无症状低风险人群的筛查目的报销该费用。在此背景下,以下评估旨在回答四个问题:血浆同型半胱氨酸浓度升高是否是冠心病的一个强、一致且独立(于其他经典风险因素)的预测指标?治疗性降低升高的血浆同型半胱氨酸水平是否能降低发生冠心病事件的风险?预防性同型半胱氨酸检测的成本效益关系如何?在实施上述预防策略时,是否存在道德、社会或法律方面的相关问题需要考虑?
为回答第一个问题,对前瞻性研究及前瞻性研究的荟萃分析进行了系统综述。纳入的研究分析了无既往冠心病的受试者或基于人群样本中血浆同型半胱氨酸水平与未来心脏事件的关联。为回答第二个问题,对文献进行了系统综述,包括随机对照试验以及确定降低同型半胱氨酸治疗预防心脏事件有效性的随机对照试验的系统评价。为回答第三个问题,分析了预防性同型半胱氨酸检测的经济学评估。所有材料的方法学质量均通过广泛认可的工具进行评估,证据进行定性总结。
对于第一个问题,有11项系统综述和33项单项研究(前瞻性队列研究和巢式病例对照研究)。这些研究在研究人群、暴露分类(同型半胱氨酸测量、表示“升高”的单位)、结局定义与测量以及混杂因素控制(定性和定量)方面存在很大异质性。考虑到这些异质性,对单患者数据进行多混杂因素控制的荟萃分析似乎是总结单项研究结果的唯一适当方法。唯一一项此类可用分析表明,在其他方面健康的人群中,血浆同型半胱氨酸水平只是未来心脏事件的一个非常弱的预测指标。经典风险因素的预测价值更强。在积极排除既往有冠心病患者的研究中,没有关于血浆同型半胱氨酸水平升高与未来心脏事件之间关联的报告。为回答第二个问题,分析了11项随机对照试验(其中10项在一项系统评价中报告)。所有试验均纳入了发生(进一步)心脏事件的高危人群。这些研究也存在明显的临床异质性:主要涉及基线时的平均血浆同型半胱氨酸水平、结局测量的类型和方式以及研究持续时间。除一项试验外,没有一项试验表明通过叶酸或B族维生素降低血浆同型半胱氨酸水平可降低心脏事件风险。这些结果也适用于血浆同型半胱氨酸水平明显升高的预定义亚组。为回答第三个问题,有三项同型半胱氨酸检测(建模研究)的经济学评估。所有经济模型均基于降低血浆同型半胱氨酸水平可降低心脏事件风险这一假设。由于上述干预性研究结果证伪了该假设,因此没有证据回答第三个问题。目前科学文献中未讨论同型半胱氨酸评估在道德、社会或法律方面的相关问题。
目前许多现有证据与同型半胱氨酸在冠心病发病机制中的因果作用相矛盾。根据布拉德福德 - 希尔标准,至少时间顺序标准(暴露必须在测量结局之前发生)、强且一致关联标准和可逆性标准未得到满足。因此,同型半胱氨酸即便有作用,可能也只是作为一个风险指标而非风险因素。此外,目前现有证据并不意味着对于预防冠心病,了解血浆同型半胱氨酸水平能提供任何超越从经典风险因素检查中获取的信息。所以,目前对于预防指征而言,没有证据表明同型半胱氨酸检测能带来任何益处。在此背景下,也没有进行成本效益计算的依据。进一步的基础研究应阐明病例对照研究和前瞻性研究结果不一致的原因。也许存在与同型半胱氨酸代谢以及冠心病相关的第三个参数(混杂因素)。进一步的流行病学研究可以阐明在考虑经典风险因素的情况下,升高的血浆同型半胱氨酸水平作为已患冠心病患者的风险指标或预后指标的作用。