Joshua Elliott1, Barbara Bodinier1, Tom A Bond1, Marc Chadeau-Hyam1, Evangelos Evangelou1,2, Karel G M Moons3, Abbas Dehghan1,4, David C Muller1, Paul Elliott1,4,5, Ioanna Tzoulaki1,2,4. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina Medical School, Ioannina, Greece. 3. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 4. MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. 5. National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Importance: The incremental value of polygenic risk scores in addition to well-established risk prediction models for coronary artery disease (CAD) is uncertain. Objective: To examine whether a polygenic risk score for CAD improves risk prediction beyond pooled cohort equations. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational study of UK Biobank participants enrolled from 2006 to 2010. A case-control sample of 15 947 prevalent CAD cases and equal number of age and sex frequency-matched controls was used to optimize the predictive performance of a polygenic risk score for CAD based on summary statistics from published genome-wide association studies. A separate cohort of 352 660 individuals (with follow-up to 2017) was used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the polygenic risk score, pooled cohort equations, and both combined for incident CAD. Exposures: Polygenic risk score for CAD, pooled cohort equations, and both combined. Main Outcomes and Measures: CAD (myocardial infarction and its related sequelae). Discrimination, calibration, and reclassification using a risk threshold of 7.5% were assessed. Results: In the cohort of 352 660 participants (mean age, 55.9 years; 205 297 women [58.2%]) used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the examined models, there were 6272 incident CAD events over a median of 8 years of follow-up. CAD discrimination for polygenic risk score, pooled cohort equations, and both combined resulted in C statistics of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.62), 0.76 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.77), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.79), respectively. The change in C statistic between the latter 2 models was 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03). Calibration of the models showed overestimation of risk by pooled cohort equations, which was corrected after recalibration. Using a risk threshold of 7.5%, addition of the polygenic risk score to pooled cohort equations resulted in a net reclassification improvement of 4.4% (95% CI, 3.5% to 5.3%) for cases and -0.4% (95% CI, -0.5% to -0.4%) for noncases (overall net reclassification improvement, 4.0% [95% CI, 3.1% to 4.9%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The addition of a polygenic risk score for CAD to pooled cohort equations was associated with a statistically significant, yet modest, improvement in the predictive accuracy for incident CAD and improved risk stratification for only a small proportion of individuals. The use of genetic information over the pooled cohort equations model warrants further investigation before clinical implementation.
Importance: The incremental value of polygenic risk scores in addition to well-established risk prediction models for coronary artery disease (CAD) is uncertain. Objective: To examine whether a polygenic risk score for CAD improves risk prediction beyond pooled cohort equations. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational study of UK Biobank participants enrolled from 2006 to 2010. A case-control sample of 15 947 prevalent CAD cases and equal number of age and sex frequency-matched controls was used to optimize the predictive performance of a polygenic risk score for CAD based on summary statistics from published genome-wide association studies. A separate cohort of 352 660 individuals (with follow-up to 2017) was used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the polygenic risk score, pooled cohort equations, and both combined for incident CAD. Exposures: Polygenic risk score for CAD, pooled cohort equations, and both combined. Main Outcomes and Measures: CAD (myocardial infarction and its related sequelae). Discrimination, calibration, and reclassification using a risk threshold of 7.5% were assessed. Results: In the cohort of 352 660 participants (mean age, 55.9 years; 205 297 women [58.2%]) used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the examined models, there were 6272 incident CAD events over a median of 8 years of follow-up. CAD discrimination for polygenic risk score, pooled cohort equations, and both combined resulted in C statistics of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.62), 0.76 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.77), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.79), respectively. The change in C statistic between the latter 2 models was 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03). Calibration of the models showed overestimation of risk by pooled cohort equations, which was corrected after recalibration. Using a risk threshold of 7.5%, addition of the polygenic risk score to pooled cohort equations resulted in a net reclassification improvement of 4.4% (95% CI, 3.5% to 5.3%) for cases and -0.4% (95% CI, -0.5% to -0.4%) for noncases (overall net reclassification improvement, 4.0% [95% CI, 3.1% to 4.9%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The addition of a polygenic risk score for CAD to pooled cohort equations was associated with a statistically significant, yet modest, improvement in the predictive accuracy for incident CAD and improved risk stratification for only a small proportion of individuals. The use of genetic information over the pooled cohort equations model warrants further investigation before clinical implementation.
Authors: Nina P Paynter; Daniel I Chasman; Guillaume Paré; Julie E Buring; Nancy R Cook; Joseph P Miletich; Paul M Ridker Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-02-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stuart G Baker; Ewoud Schuit; Ewout W Steyerberg; Michael J Pencina; Andrew Vickers; Andew Vickers; Karel G M Moons; Ben W J Mol; Karen S Lindeman Journal: Stat Med Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Steve Yadlowsky; Rodney A Hayward; Jeremy B Sussman; Robyn L McClelland; Yuan-I Min; Sanjay Basu Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Yi-Juan Hu; Amand F Schmidt; Frank Dudbridge; Michael V Holmes; James M Brophy; Vinicius Tragante; Ziyi Li; Peizhou Liao; Arshed A Quyyumi; Raymond O McCubrey; Benjamin D Horne; Aroon D Hingorani; Folkert W Asselbergs; Riyaz S Patel; Qi Long Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2017-10
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: Clint L Miller; Amy R Kontorovich; Ke Hao; Lijiang Ma; Conrad Iyegbe; Johan L M Björkegren; Jason C Kovacic Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 24.094