Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of the included studies.
| Author | Year | Population (n) | Investigated Biomarkers | Sample Size | Age in Years Mean (SD) | Male Gender (%) | DM (%) | HTN (%) | Current Smoking (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAD | no CAD | CAD | no CAD | CAD | no CAD | CAD | no CAD | CAD | no CAD | CAD | no CAD | ||||
| Cohort studies | |||||||||||||||
| Björkbacka [14] | 2016 | Population-based prospective cohort (5393) | anti-p45 IgG, anti-p45 IgM, anti-p210 IgG, anti-p210 IgM | 398 | 4995 | 61.1 [57.2–64.7] * | 57.6 [52.2–62.5] * | 61.6 | 39.8 | 19.8 | 7.4 | 81.2 | 62.5 | 33.8 | 26.1 |
| Maiolino [15] | 2012 | CAG patients (733) b | IgG anti-MDA-LDL | 733 | 63.3 | 78.4 | NR | NR | 7.3 | ||||||
| Meeuwsen [16] | 2017 | 168 endarterectomy patients | IgG anti-oxLDL, IgM anti-oxLDL | 168 | 70.1 (9.6) | 62.8 | 23.8 | 86.6 | 35.7 | ||||||
| Prasad [17] | 2017 | Population-based prospective cohort (3509) | IgG anti-MDA-LDL, IgM anti-MDA-LDL | 190 | 2914 | 43.7 (10.1) † | 44.1† | 11.6† | 34.4† | 29.3† | |||||
| Tsimikas [18] | 2007 | CAG patients (504) a | IgG anti-MDA-LDL, IgM anti-MDA-LDL | 504 | 60.1 | 61.7 | NR | 46.0 | 7.9 | ||||||
| Tsimikas [10] | 2012 | Population-based prospective cohort (765) | IgG anti-cu-oxLDL, IgM anti-MDA-LDL | 138 | 627 | 68.8 (10.5) | 61.4 (10.9) | 48.5 | 59.4 | 13.8 | 6.9 | 75.4 | 66.0 | 17.4 | 20.4 |
| Wilson [19] | 2006 | Population-based prospective cohort (2619) | IgG anti-MDA-LDL | 151 | 2468 | 49.52 † | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | |
| Case-control studies | |||||||||||||||
| Khamisc [20] | 2016 | Hypertensive patients receiving blood pressure-lowering treatment (1852) | IgG anti-MDA-LDL, IgM anti-MDA-LDL | 485 | 1367 | 65.3 (7.8) | 65.3 (7.6) | 84.5 | 84.9 | 30.9 | 26.3 | NR | NR | 7.8 | 7.6 |
| Ravandi [21] | 2011 | Population-based prospective cohort (2471) | IgG anti-MDA-LDL, IgM anti-MDA-LDL | 748 | 1723 | 65.4 (7.8) | 65.4 (7.8) | 62.8 | 61.6 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 15.5 | 8.6 |
| van den Berg d [22] | 2018 | 87 subjects with CHD, 227 subjects free of CHD | IgG anti-MDA-LDL, IgM anti-MDA-LDL | 87 | 227 | 60.4 (6.3) | 59.8 (6.4) | 67.8 | 64.8 | 14.9 | 7.9 | 100 | 100 | 8 | 6.6 |
| Cross-sectional studies | |||||||||||||||
| Bilgen [23] | 2005 | CAD patients (136). healthy controls (31) | IgG anti-oxLDL | 136 | 31 | 57.6 (11.3) | 53.5 (10.2) | 70.5 | 67.8 | 13.2 | 0 | 30.9 | 0 | 47.8 | 0 |
| Che [24] | 2011 | CAG patients (154) | IgG anti-oxLDL | 117 | 37 | 63.7 (10.6) | 62.0 (11.5) | 63.4 | 64.9 | 24.8 | 16.2 | 64.1 | 70.3 | 43.6 | 24.3 |
| Chen [25] | 2011 | CAG patients (558) | IgG anti-MDA-LDL, IgM anti-MDA-LDL | 334 | 224 | 60.7 | 53.2 | 0 | 0 | 31.4 | 17.9 | 63.2 | 47.3 | 21.3 | 16.5 |
| Garrido-Sanchez [26] | 2009 | CAG patients (236) | IgG anti-oxLDL, IgM anti-oxLDL | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Gruzdeva [27] | 2014 | STEMI patients (400), 33 healthy controls | IgG anti-oxLDL | 400 | NR | 60.3 (1.1) | NR | 67.5 | NR | NR | NR | 69.8 | NR | 42 | NR |
| Maiolino [15] | 2012 | CAG patients (733) b | IgG anti-MDA-LDL | 733 | 63.3 | 78.4 | NR | NR | 7.3 | ||||||
| Moohebati [28] | 2013 | CAG patients (63), healthy controls (24) | IgG anti-oxLDL | 31 | 56 | 59.4 (10.1) | 58.3 | 38.7 | 58.9 | 41.9 | 10.7 | 64.5 | 44.6 | 51.6 | 25 |
| Rossi [29] | 2003 | CAG patients (529) | IgG anti-MDA-LDL | 445 | 84 | 63 | 62 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Soto [30] | 2009 | CAG patients (20), healthy controls (10) | IgG anti-oxLDL, IgM anti-oxLDL | 13 | 17 | 59 | 36.5 | 100 | 52.9 | 23.1 | 0 | 69.2 | 11.8 | 46.2 | 11.8 |
| Tsimikas [18] | 2007 | CAG patients (504) a | IgG anti-MDA-LDL, IgM anti-MDA-LDL | 504 | 60.1 | 61.7 | NR | 46.0 | 7.9 | ||||||
| van den Berg d [22] | 2018 | 87 subjects with CHD, 227 subjects free of CHD | IgG anti-MDA-LDL, IgM anti-MDA-LDL | 87 | 227 | 60.4 (6.3) | 59.8 (6.4) | 67.8 | 64.8 | 14.9 | 7.9 | 100 | 100 | 8 | 6.6 |
If CAG patients were classified as having normal coronary arteries, their baseline characteristics are mentioned under ‘without CAD’ and combined with healthy controls, if needed. Note that experimental biomarker assays are methodologically heterogenous. Please refer to the original publications for assay details. a: all patients were divided into either 2 groups; one with at least one stenosis with a diameter > 50% and one group without. As for the latter group, we cannot determine the baseline characteristics for the patients without any CAD. We chose to summarize all the baseline characteristics under known CAD. b: of which 570 used for analysis. c: Case-control constructed from participants of a randomized controlled trial comparing two blood pressure lowering regimes: (1) a beta-blocker with a thiazide diuretic and a (2) dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. d: two separate cohorts are discussed in this paper, both are included separately in the systematic review. * median [IQR]. † Baseline characteristics only available for the entire group. CAD: coronary artery disease, CAG: coronary angiography, DM: diabetes mellitus, HTN: hypertension, MI: myocardial infarction, NR: not reported; SD: standard deviation.