Skip to main content
. 2022 Jan 26;205(9):1102–1111. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202105-1118OC

Table 2.

Cox Regression Survival Analysis of the Six-Protein Model Score against Clinical Targets and French Risk Equation

  Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Intervals) P Value
Model 1: clinical targets in EFORT    
 Six-protein model sample 2 ROC cutoff 3.72 (1.49–9.307) 0.0049
 Clinical targets at follow-up (⩾2 or not) 0.232 (0.103–0.526) 0.000459
Model 2: change in model score in EFORT    
 Six-protein model sample 1 ROC cutoff 6.119 (2.102–17.819) 0.000894
 Change in six-protein model 3.994 (1.711–9.324) 0.00137
Model 3: comparison with French risk equation in UK Cohort    
 Six-protein model score 5.486 (3.243–9.279) 2.20 × 10−10
 French risk equation 1.652 (1.068–2.556) 0.0242
Model 4: comparison with French risk equation in EFORT baseline    
 Six-protein model score 2.138 (1.065–4.293) 0.033
 French risk equation 4.818 (2.101–11.047) 0.0002
Model 5: comparison with French risk equation in EFORT follow-up    
 Six-protein model score 2.781 (1.315–5.88) 0.007
 French risk equation 5.805 (1.297–25.986) 0.021

Definition of abbreviations: EFORT = Evaluation of Prognostic Factors and Therapeutic Targets in PAH; PAH = pulmonary arterial hypertension; ROC = receiver operating characteristic.

Change in the six-protein model score was compared to the baseline six-protein measurements and the international guideline low-risk clinical targets met at follow-up (World Health Organization functional class = I or II, 6-minute-walk distance > 440 m, cardiac index ⩾ 2.5 L/min/m2, mean right atrial pressure < 8 mm Hg, and brain natriuretic peptide or N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide < 50 ng/L or 300 ng/L, respectively). Subsequently, the six-protein model score was tested against the French risk equation in both the UK cohort and the French EFORT study. Bold type indicates six-protein model analysis.