Haoyu Wu1,2, Jian'an Luan3, Vincenzo Forgetta2, James C Engert4,5,6, George Thanassoulis4,5,6, Vincent Mooser5, Nicholas J Wareham3, Claudia Langenberg3, J Brent Richards1,2,5,7. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health (H.W., J.B.R.), McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 2. Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital (H.W., V.F., J.B.R.), McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 3. MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom (J.L., N.J.W., C.L.). 4. Department of Medicine (J.C.E., G.T.), McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 5. Department of Human Genetics (J.C.E., G.T., V.M., J.B.R.), McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 6. McGill University Health Centre Research Institute, Montreal, Québec, Canada (J.C.E., G.T.). 7. Department of Twin Research, King's College London, United Kingdom (J.B.R.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current lipid guidelines suggest measurement of Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a]) and ApoB (apolipoprotein B) for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for Lp(a) and ApoB may identify individuals unlikely to have elevated Lp(a) or ApoB and thus reduce such suggested testing. METHODS: PRSs were developed using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression among 273 222 and 356 958 UK Biobank participants of white British ancestry for Lp(a) and ApoB, respectively, and validated in separate sets of 60 771 UK Biobank and 15 050 European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Norfolk participants. We then assessed the proportion of participants who, based on these PRSs, were unlikely to benefit from Lp(a) or ApoB measurements, according to current lipid guidelines. RESULTS: In the UK Biobank and European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Norfolk cohorts, the area under the receiver operating curve for the PRS-predicted Lp(a) and ApoB to identify individuals with elevated Lp(a) and ApoB was at least 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92) and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.73-0.75), respectively. The Lp(a) PRS and measured Lp(a) showed comparable association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease incidence, whereas the ApoB PRS was in general less predictive of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk than measured ApoB. In the context of the European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society lipid guidelines, at a 95% sensitivity to identify individuals with elevated Lp(a) and ApoB levels, at least 54% of Lp(a) and 24% of ApoB testing could be reduced by prescreening with a PRS while maintaining a low false-negative rate. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of suggested testing for elevated Lp(a) and a modest proportion of testing for elevated ApoB could potentially be reduced by prescreening individuals with PRSs.
BACKGROUND: Current lipid guidelines suggest measurement of Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a]) and ApoB (apolipoprotein B) for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for Lp(a) and ApoB may identify individuals unlikely to have elevated Lp(a) or ApoB and thus reduce such suggested testing. METHODS: PRSs were developed using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression among 273 222 and 356 958 UK Biobank participants of white British ancestry for Lp(a) and ApoB, respectively, and validated in separate sets of 60 771 UK Biobank and 15 050 European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Norfolk participants. We then assessed the proportion of participants who, based on these PRSs, were unlikely to benefit from Lp(a) or ApoB measurements, according to current lipid guidelines. RESULTS: In the UK Biobank and European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Norfolk cohorts, the area under the receiver operating curve for the PRS-predicted Lp(a) and ApoB to identify individuals with elevated Lp(a) and ApoB was at least 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92) and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.73-0.75), respectively. The Lp(a) PRS and measured Lp(a) showed comparable association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease incidence, whereas the ApoB PRS was in general less predictive of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk than measured ApoB. In the context of the European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society lipid guidelines, at a 95% sensitivity to identify individuals with elevated Lp(a) and ApoB levels, at least 54% of Lp(a) and 24% of ApoB testing could be reduced by prescreening with a PRS while maintaining a low false-negative rate. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of suggested testing for elevated Lp(a) and a modest proportion of testing for elevated ApoB could potentially be reduced by prescreening individuals with PRSs.