Jonathan D Mosley1,2, Deepak K Gupta1, Jingyi Tan3, Jie Yao3, Quinn S Wells1,4, Christian M Shaffer1, Suman Kundu1, Cassianne Robinson-Cohen1,5, Bruce M Psaty6, Stephen S Rich7, Wendy S Post8,9, Xiuqing Guo3, Jerome I Rotter3,10, Dan M Roden1,2,4, Robert E Gerszten11, Thomas J Wang12. 1. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 2. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics, Torrance, California. 4. Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. 5. Vanderbilt O'Brien Center for Kidney Disease, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 6. Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health; and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 7. Department of Public Health Sciences, Center for Public Health Genomics, Charlottesville, Virginia. 8. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 9. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 10. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Torrance, California12. 11. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 12. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.
Abstract
Importance: Polygenic risk scores comprising millions of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) could be useful for population-wide coronary heart disease (CHD) screening. Objective: To determine whether a polygenic risk score improves prediction of CHD compared with a guideline-recommended clinical risk equation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of the predictive accuracy of a previously validated polygenic risk score was assessed among 4847 adults of white European ancestry, aged 45 through 79 years, participating in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study and 2390 participating in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) from 1996 through December 31, 2015, the final day of follow-up. The performance of the polygenic risk score was compared with that of the 2013 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association pooled cohort equations. Exposures: Genetic risk was computed for each participant by summing the product of the weights and allele dosage across 6 630 149 SNPs. Weights were based on an international genome-wide association study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prediction of 10-year first CHD events (including myocardial infarctions, fatal coronary events, silent infarctions, revascularization procedures, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) assessed using measures of model discrimination, calibration, and net reclassification improvement (NRI). Results: The study population included 4847 adults from the ARIC study (mean [SD] age, 62.9 [5.6] years; 56.4% women) and 2390 adults from the MESA cohort (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [9.6] years; 52.2% women). Incident CHD events occurred in 696 participants (14.4%) and 227 participants (9.5%), respectively, over median follow-up of 15.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 6.3 years) and 14.2 (IQR, 2.5 years) years. The polygenic risk score was significantly associated with 10-year CHD incidence in ARIC with hazard ratios per SD increment of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.15 to 1.34) and in MESA, 1.38 (95% CI, 1.21 to 1.58). Addition of the polygenic risk score to the pooled cohort equations did not significantly increase the C statistic in either cohort (ARIC, change in C statistic, -0.001; 95% CI, -0.009 to 0.006; MESA, 0.021; 95% CI, -0.0004 to 0.043). At the 10-year risk threshold of 7.5%, the addition of the polygenic risk score to the pooled cohort equations did not provide significant improvement in reclassification in either ARIC (NRI, 0.018, 95% CI, -0.012 to 0.036) or MESA (NRI, 0.001, 95% CI, -0.038 to 0.076). The polygenic risk score did not significantly improve calibration in either cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of 2 cohorts of US adults, the polygenic risk score was associated with incident coronary heart disease events but did not significantly improve discrimination, calibration, or risk reclassification compared with conventional predictors. These findings suggest that a polygenic risk score may not enhance risk prediction in a general, white middle-aged population.
Importance: Polygenic risk scores comprising millions of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) could be useful for population-wide coronary heart disease (CHD) screening. Objective: To determine whether a polygenic risk score improves prediction of CHD compared with a guideline-recommended clinical risk equation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of the predictive accuracy of a previously validated polygenic risk score was assessed among 4847 adults of white European ancestry, aged 45 through 79 years, participating in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study and 2390 participating in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) from 1996 through December 31, 2015, the final day of follow-up. The performance of the polygenic risk score was compared with that of the 2013 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association pooled cohort equations. Exposures: Genetic risk was computed for each participant by summing the product of the weights and allele dosage across 6 630 149 SNPs. Weights were based on an international genome-wide association study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prediction of 10-year first CHD events (including myocardial infarctions, fatal coronary events, silent infarctions, revascularization procedures, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) assessed using measures of model discrimination, calibration, and net reclassification improvement (NRI). Results: The study population included 4847 adults from the ARIC study (mean [SD] age, 62.9 [5.6] years; 56.4% women) and 2390 adults from the MESA cohort (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [9.6] years; 52.2% women). Incident CHD events occurred in 696 participants (14.4%) and 227 participants (9.5%), respectively, over median follow-up of 15.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 6.3 years) and 14.2 (IQR, 2.5 years) years. The polygenic risk score was significantly associated with 10-year CHD incidence in ARIC with hazard ratios per SD increment of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.15 to 1.34) and in MESA, 1.38 (95% CI, 1.21 to 1.58). Addition of the polygenic risk score to the pooled cohort equations did not significantly increase the C statistic in either cohort (ARIC, change in C statistic, -0.001; 95% CI, -0.009 to 0.006; MESA, 0.021; 95% CI, -0.0004 to 0.043). At the 10-year risk threshold of 7.5%, the addition of the polygenic risk score to the pooled cohort equations did not provide significant improvement in reclassification in either ARIC (NRI, 0.018, 95% CI, -0.012 to 0.036) or MESA (NRI, 0.001, 95% CI, -0.038 to 0.076). The polygenic risk score did not significantly improve calibration in either cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of 2 cohorts of US adults, the polygenic risk score was associated with incident coronary heart disease events but did not significantly improve discrimination, calibration, or risk reclassification compared with conventional predictors. These findings suggest that a polygenic risk score may not enhance risk prediction in a general, white middle-aged population.
Authors: David C Goff; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Glen Bennett; Sean Coady; Ralph B D'Agostino; Raymond Gibbons; Philip Greenland; Daniel T Lackland; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Jennifer G Robinson; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Paul Sorlie; Neil J Stone; Peter W F Wilson; Harmon S Jordan; Lev Nevo; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Thomas J Wang; Philimon Gona; Martin G Larson; Geoffrey H Tofler; Daniel Levy; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Paul F Jacques; Nader Rifai; Jacob Selhub; Sander J Robins; Emelia J Benjamin; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-12-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kathleen F Kerr; Zheyu Wang; Holly Janes; Robyn L McClelland; Bruce M Psaty; Margaret S Pepe Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Majid Nikpay; Anuj Goel; Hong-Hee Won; Leanne M Hall; Christina Willenborg; Stavroula Kanoni; Danish Saleheen; Theodosios Kyriakou; Christopher P Nelson; Jemma C Hopewell; Thomas R Webb; Lingyao Zeng; Abbas Dehghan; Maris Alver; Sebastian M Armasu; Kirsi Auro; Andrew Bjonnes; Daniel I Chasman; Shufeng Chen; Ian Ford; Nora Franceschini; Christian Gieger; Christopher Grace; Stefan Gustafsson; Jie Huang; Shih-Jen Hwang; Yun Kyoung Kim; Marcus E Kleber; King Wai Lau; Xiangfeng Lu; Yingchang Lu; Leo-Pekka Lyytikäinen; Evelin Mihailov; Alanna C Morrison; Natalia Pervjakova; Liming Qu; Lynda M Rose; Elias Salfati; Richa Saxena; Markus Scholz; Albert V Smith; Emmi Tikkanen; Andre Uitterlinden; Xueli Yang; Weihua Zhang; Wei Zhao; Mariza de Andrade; Paul S de Vries; Natalie R van Zuydam; Sonia S Anand; Lars Bertram; Frank Beutner; George Dedoussis; Philippe Frossard; Dominique Gauguier; Alison H Goodall; Omri Gottesman; Marc Haber; Bok-Ghee Han; Jianfeng Huang; Shapour Jalilzadeh; Thorsten Kessler; Inke R König; Lars Lannfelt; Wolfgang Lieb; Lars Lind; Cecilia M Lindgren; Marja-Liisa Lokki; Patrik K Magnusson; Nadeem H Mallick; Narinder Mehra; Thomas Meitinger; Fazal-Ur-Rehman Memon; Andrew P Morris; Markku S Nieminen; Nancy L Pedersen; Annette Peters; Loukianos S Rallidis; Asif Rasheed; Maria Samuel; Svati H Shah; Juha Sinisalo; Kathleen E Stirrups; Stella Trompet; Laiyuan Wang; Khan S Zaman; Diego Ardissino; Eric Boerwinkle; Ingrid B Borecki; Erwin P Bottinger; Julie E Buring; John C Chambers; Rory Collins; L Adrienne Cupples; John Danesh; Ilja Demuth; Roberto Elosua; Stephen E Epstein; Tõnu Esko; Mary F Feitosa; Oscar H Franco; Maria Grazia Franzosi; Christopher B Granger; Dongfeng Gu; Vilmundur Gudnason; Alistair S Hall; Anders Hamsten; Tamara B Harris; Stanley L Hazen; Christian Hengstenberg; Albert Hofman; Erik Ingelsson; Carlos Iribarren; J Wouter Jukema; Pekka J Karhunen; Bong-Jo Kim; Jaspal S Kooner; Iftikhar J Kullo; Terho Lehtimäki; Ruth J F Loos; Olle Melander; Andres Metspalu; Winfried März; Colin N Palmer; Markus Perola; Thomas Quertermous; Daniel J Rader; Paul M Ridker; Samuli Ripatti; Robert Roberts; Veikko Salomaa; Dharambir K Sanghera; Stephen M Schwartz; Udo Seedorf; Alexandre F Stewart; David J Stott; Joachim Thiery; Pierre A Zalloua; Christopher J O'Donnell; Muredach P Reilly; Themistocles L Assimes; John R Thompson; Jeanette Erdmann; Robert Clarke; Hugh Watkins; Sekar Kathiresan; Ruth McPherson; Panos Deloukas; Heribert Schunkert; Nilesh J Samani; Martin Farrall Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Joshua W Knowles; Shirin Zarafshar; Aleksandra Pavlovic; Benjamin A Goldstein; Sandra Tsai; Jin Li; Michael V McConnell; Devin Absher; Euan A Ashley; Michaela Kiernan; John P A Ioannidis; Themistocles L Assimes Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2017-08-14
Authors: Krishna G Aragam; Amanda Dobbyn; Renae Judy; Mark Chaffin; Kumardeep Chaudhary; George Hindy; Andrew Cagan; Phoebe Finneran; Lu-Chen Weng; Ruth J F Loos; Girish Nadkarni; Judy H Cho; Rachel L Kember; Aris Baras; Jeffrey Reid; John Overton; Anthony Philippakis; Patrick T Ellinor; Scott T Weiss; Daniel J Rader; Steven A Lubitz; Jordan W Smoller; Elizabeth W Karlson; Amit V Khera; Sekar Kathiresan; Ron Do; Scott M Damrauer; Pradeep Natarajan Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jawan W Abdulrahim; Lydia Coulter Kwee; Fawaz Alenezi; Albert Y Sun; Aris Baras; Teminioluwa A Ajayi; Ricardo Henao; Christopher L Holley; Robert W McGarrah; James P Daubert; Lauren K Truby; Sreekanth Vemulapalli; Andrew Wang; Michel G Khouri; Svati H Shah Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Venkatesh L Murthy; Ravi V Shah; Jared P Reis; Alexander R Pico; Robert Kitchen; Joao A C Lima; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Norrina B Allen; Mercedes Carnethon; Gregory D Lewis; Matthew Nayor; Ramachandran S Vasan; Jane E Freedman; Clary B Clish Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 29.690