Paula F Martinez1, Marina P Okoshi2. 1. Faculdade de Fisioterapia da Universidade de Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, MS - Brazil. 2. Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu (UNESP), Botucatu, SP - Brazil.
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of death worldwide. It is most commonly
caused by atherosclerosis in coronary arteries. Coronary artery disease has a complex
etiology, mainly a combination of traditional risk factors and genetic predisposition.
Traditional risk factors include type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, arterial hypertension,
and cigarette smoking.[1] However, these
are not sufficient to identify high risk asymptomatic individuals and do not explain all
cases of CAD. In fact, hereditary influence on CAD susceptibility accounts for between
40% and 50% of cases.[2]Polymorphisms are common genetic variations, defined as being present in more than 1% of
the population.[3] A polymorphism is a
nucleotide substitution that does not alter the primary amino acid structure of the
resulting protein.[3] A single-nucleotide
polymorphism (SNP) is a variation in DNA in a single nucleotide that occurs at a
specific position in the genome. An SNP may be a marker of disease
susceptibility.[3] Populations of
healthy and affected individuals can be evaluated by genotyping SNP within a gene and
its regulatory sequences.[4] Genome-wide
association studies (GWAS) have been used to create genetic risk scores to improve CAD
risk prediction.[4-6] However, their value as an independent risk predictor
for CAD is not clear.In this issue of Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, Pereira et
al.[7] provide us with an
interesting study on generating a multilocus genetic risk score based on common variants
already associated with CAD. They then evaluated whether genetic risk score is
independent of the traditional risk factors and improves CAD risk prediction in relation
to a traditional risk factor only model.By searching data from the National Human Genome Research Institute, the authors analyzed
33 genetic variants previously associated with CAD. The study population was selected
from GENEMACOR (GENEs in a population from the Portuguese island of MAdeira with
CORonary artery disease), a developing case-control population study with
1,566 cases and 1,322 controls. Coronary risk was determined by logistic regression
analysis. Two ROC curves were constructed, one with and one without genetic risk score;
these were compared by use of the DeLong test. The estimated area under the traditional
risk factor ROC curve was 0.72, which statistically increased to 0.74 when the genetic
risk score was added, thus revealing a better fit of the model. The study strength comes
from assessing a large sample size and a homogenous population as only permanent Madeira
residents were included.Genetic risk scores have undergone extensive study and major progress has been made to
better understand the role of genetic influence on CAD and the function of each novel
locus.[4,8-13] However, the
role of most genetic variants in disease processes remains unknown.[10] Furthermore, the presence or lack of a
traditional risk factor may determine whether or not a genetic factor will contribute to
disease.[5]Although in the study by Pereira et al.[7]
the addition of genetic risk score gave a statistically superior score in identifying
high risk patients, the difference between the two risk factor curves was small.
Therefore, considering that traditional risk factors have been poorly controlled in the
general population and the high financial cost of determining genetic risk scores, it is
important to remain focused on preventing and controlling traditional risk factors until
the role of genetic risk scores is better understood.
Authors: Chen Yao; Brian H Chen; Roby Joehanes; Burcak Otlu; Xiaoling Zhang; Chunyu Liu; Tianxiao Huan; Oznur Tastan; L Adrienne Cupples; James B Meigs; Caroline S Fox; Jane E Freedman; Paul Courchesne; Christopher J O'Donnell; Peter J Munson; Sunduz Keles; Daniel Levy Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Joanna M M Howson; Wei Zhao; Daniel R Barnes; Weang-Kee Ho; Robin Young; Dirk S Paul; Lindsay L Waite; Daniel F Freitag; Eric B Fauman; Elias L Salfati; Benjamin B Sun; John D Eicher; Andrew D Johnson; Wayne H H Sheu; Sune F Nielsen; Wei-Yu Lin; Praveen Surendran; Anders Malarstig; Jemma B Wilk; Anne Tybjærg-Hansen; Katrine L Rasmussen; Pia R Kamstrup; Panos Deloukas; Jeanette Erdmann; Sekar Kathiresan; Nilesh J Samani; Heribert Schunkert; Hugh Watkins; Ron Do; Daniel J Rader; Julie A Johnson; Stanley L Hazen; Arshed A Quyyumi; John A Spertus; Carl J Pepine; Nora Franceschini; Anne Justice; Alex P Reiner; Steven Buyske; Lucia A Hindorff; Cara L Carty; Kari E North; Charles Kooperberg; Eric Boerwinkle; Kristin Young; Mariaelisa Graff; Ulrike Peters; Devin Absher; Chao A Hsiung; Wen-Jane Lee; Kent D Taylor; Ying-Hsiang Chen; I-Te Lee; Xiuqing Guo; Ren-Hua Chung; Yi-Jen Hung; Jerome I Rotter; Jyh-Ming J Juang; Thomas Quertermous; Tzung-Dau Wang; Asif Rasheed; Philippe Frossard; Dewan S Alam; Abdulla Al Shafi Majumder; Emanuele Di Angelantonio; Rajiv Chowdhury; Yii-Der Ida Chen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Themistocles L Assimes; John Danesh; Adam S Butterworth; Danish Saleheen Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 41.307
Authors: Yang Guo; Fan Wang; Lin Li; Hanxiang Gao; Stephen Arckacki; Isabel Z Wang; John Barnard; Stephen Ellis; Carlos Hubbard; Eric J Topol; Qiuyun Chen; Qing K Wang Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Andreia Pereira; Maria Isabel Mendonça; Sofia Borges; Sónia Freitas; Eva Henriques; Mariana Rodrigues; Ana Isabel Freitas; Ana Célia Sousa; António Brehm; Roberto Palma Dos Reis Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 2.000