White blood cell count may predict risk for cardiovascular events and death in postmenopausal women without traditional risk factors
White blood cell count may predict risk for
cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in postmenopausal
women without traditional risk factors, according to an article
in the March 14th issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.
The authors had considered that white blood cell count is a stable,
well-standardized, widely available and inexpensive measure of systemic
inflammation.
Karen L Margolis, MD, MPH, and her American colleagues used data
from a total of 72,242 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years
who participated in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) Observational
Study (WHI-OS) to assess white blood cell count as an independent
predictor of cardiovascular events and death from any cause.
Women underwent screening that included collection of personal
information, medical history, information about previous history
of cardiovascular events or cancer, and blood collection at the
beginning of the study. Follow-up was conducted by annual questionnaires,
except in the third year, which featured a clinical follow-up visit.
"Because of its large size and broad representation of women
from across the United States, this cohort provides an opportunity
to determine whether the association of white blood cell count with
future cardiovascular events is present in postmenopausal women
and to examine the independence of this association from other known
cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and biomarkers,"
the authors wrote.
Known risk factors and biomarkers included in the analysis included
age, race, ethnicity, baseline hypertension, diabetes, smoking,
body mass index diet, physical activity, current use of aspirin
or hormone therapy, and C-reactive protein, a biomarker for inflammation.
White blood cell counts were measured at the beginning of the study
and women were divided into quartiles. Medical histories were taken
each year for six years of follow-up. Only participants who were
entirely free of clinical CVD and cancer at the beginning of the
study were included in the analysis. Women in the highest quartile
had double the risk for coronary heart disease death compared with
women in the lowest quartile after statistical adjustment for other
risk factors.
"Women in the upper quartile also had a 40 percent higher
risk for nonfatal myocardial infarction, a 46 percent higher risk
for stroke, and 50 percent higher risk for total mortality,"
the authors wrote. "In multivariable models adjusting for C-reactive
protein, the WBC count was an independent predictor of coronary
heart disease risk, comparable in magnitude to C-reactive protein."
In an editorial accompanying this study, Mary Cushman, MD, suggested
that "several issues must be considered when interpreting data
from observational studies on new risk factors. For leukocyte [white
blood cell] count automated measurement methods are well standardized
and precision excellent. There is little information on the variability
of leukocyte count in individuals over time, but from limited data,
the within-person compared with between-person variability is similar
to that of cholesterol or C-reactive protein."
"Considering the use for vascular risk assessment in practice,
the cost of leukocyte count determination is lower compared with
other novel vascular risk markers under current consideration,"
Cushman wrote. "In addition, it is possible that assessment
of more than one inflammation-sensitive factor at the same time
allows better classification of patients as to whether they have
inflammation."
"It is reassuring to see continuing study of simple and well-standardized
biomarkers, such as leukocyte count, and risk of vascular outcomes,"
Cushman concluded. "Whether novel risk markers such as leukocyte
count or CRP concentration should be added to routine vascular risk
assessment in asymptomatic patients is an area of ongoing intense
interest. Improvement of the precision of "inflammation testing"
by exploring even newer biomarkers or using combinations of tests
is a ripe area for investigation. The latter will probably require
pooled data from multiple studies to achieve precise risk estimates
that can be translated into practice."
|