Michael Bray1,2, Yoonhoo Chang1, Timothy B Baker3, Douglas Jorenby3, Robert M Carney1, Louis Fox1, Giang Pham1, Faith Stoneking1, Nina Smock1,4, Christopher I Amos5,6, Laura Bierut1,4, Li-Shiun Chen1,4. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 2. Department of Genetic Counseling, Bay Path University, Longmeadow, MA, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 4. The Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Department of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tobacco use disorder is a complex behavior with a strong genetic component. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on smoking behaviors allow for the creation of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to approximate genetic vulnerability. However, the utility of smoking-related PRSs in predicting smoking cessation in clinical trials remains unknown. AIMS AND METHODS: We evaluated the association between polygenic risk scores and bioverified smoking abstinence in a meta-analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled smoking cessation trials. PRSs of smoking behaviors were created using the GWAS and Sequencing Consortium of Alcohol and Nicotine use (GSCAN) consortium summary statistics. We evaluated the utility of using individual PRS of specific smoking behavior versus a combined genetic risk that combines PRS of all four smoking behaviors. Study participants came from the Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers (TTURCs) Study (1091 smokers of European descent), and the Genetically Informed Smoking Cessation Trial (GISC) Study (501 smokers of European descent). RESULTS: PRS of later age of smoking initiation (OR [95% CI]: 1.20, [1.04-1.37], p = .0097) was significantly associated with bioverified smoking abstinence at end of treatment. In addition, the combined PRS of smoking behaviors also significantly predicted bioverified smoking abstinence (OR [95% CI] 0.71 [0.51-0.99], p = .045). CONCLUSIONS: PRS of later age at smoking initiation may be useful in predicting smoking cessation at the end of treatment. A combined PRS may be a useful predictor for smoking abstinence by capturing the genetic propensity for multiple smoking behaviors. IMPLICATIONS: There is a potential for polygenic risk scores to inform future clinical medicine, and a great need for evidence on whether these scores predict clinically meaningful outcomes. Our meta-analysis provides early evidence for potential utility of using polygenic risk scores to predict smoking cessation amongst smokers undergoing quit attempts, informing further work to optimize the use of polygenic risk scores in clinical care.
INTRODUCTION: Tobacco use disorder is a complex behavior with a strong genetic component. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on smoking behaviors allow for the creation of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to approximate genetic vulnerability. However, the utility of smoking-related PRSs in predicting smoking cessation in clinical trials remains unknown. AIMS AND METHODS: We evaluated the association between polygenic risk scores and bioverified smoking abstinence in a meta-analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled smoking cessation trials. PRSs of smoking behaviors were created using the GWAS and Sequencing Consortium of Alcohol and Nicotine use (GSCAN) consortium summary statistics. We evaluated the utility of using individual PRS of specific smoking behavior versus a combined genetic risk that combines PRS of all four smoking behaviors. Study participants came from the Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers (TTURCs) Study (1091 smokers of European descent), and the Genetically Informed Smoking Cessation Trial (GISC) Study (501 smokers of European descent). RESULTS: PRS of later age of smoking initiation (OR [95% CI]: 1.20, [1.04-1.37], p = .0097) was significantly associated with bioverified smoking abstinence at end of treatment. In addition, the combined PRS of smoking behaviors also significantly predicted bioverified smoking abstinence (OR [95% CI] 0.71 [0.51-0.99], p = .045). CONCLUSIONS: PRS of later age at smoking initiation may be useful in predicting smoking cessation at the end of treatment. A combined PRS may be a useful predictor for smoking abstinence by capturing the genetic propensity for multiple smoking behaviors. IMPLICATIONS: There is a potential for polygenic risk scores to inform future clinical medicine, and a great need for evidence on whether these scores predict clinically meaningful outcomes. Our meta-analysis provides early evidence for potential utility of using polygenic risk scores to predict smoking cessation amongst smokers undergoing quit attempts, informing further work to optimize the use of polygenic risk scores in clinical care.
Authors: Alkes L Price; Nick J Patterson; Robert M Plenge; Michael E Weinblatt; Nancy A Shadick; David Reich Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2006-07-23 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Li-Shiun Chen; Timothy B Baker; J Philip Miller; Michael Bray; Nina Smock; Jingling Chen; Faith Stoneking; Robert C Culverhouse; Nancy L Saccone; Christopher I Amos; Robert M Carney; Douglas E Jorenby; Laura J Bierut Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Li-Shiun Chen; Rayjean J Hung; Timothy Baker; Amy Horton; Rob Culverhouse; Nancy Saccone; Iona Cheng; Bo Deng; Younghun Han; Helen M Hansen; Janet Horsman; Claire Kim; Sharon Lutz; Albert Rosenberger; Katja K Aben; Angeline S Andrew; Naomi Breslau; Shen-Chih Chang; Aida Karina Dieffenbach; Hendrik Dienemann; Brittni Frederiksen; Jiali Han; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Eric O Johnson; Mala Pande; Margaret R Wrensch; John McLaughlin; Vidar Skaug; Henricus F van der Heijden; Jason Wampfler; Angela Wenzlaff; Penella Woll; Shanbeh Zienolddiny; Heike Bickeböller; Hermann Brenner; Eric J Duell; Aage Haugen; Joachim Heinrich; John E Hokanson; David J Hunter; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Philip Lazarus; Loic Le Marchand; Geoffrey Liu; Jose Mayordomo; Angela Risch; Ann G Schwartz; Dawn Teare; Xifeng Wu; John K Wiencke; Ping Yang; Zuo-Feng Zhang; Margaret R Spitz; Peter Kraft; Christopher I Amos; Laura J Bierut Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sayantan Das; Lukas Forer; Sebastian Schönherr; Carlo Sidore; Adam E Locke; Alan Kwong; Scott I Vrieze; Emily Y Chew; Shawn Levy; Matt McGue; David Schlessinger; Dwight Stambolian; Po-Ru Loh; William G Iacono; Anand Swaroop; Laura J Scott; Francesco Cucca; Florian Kronenberg; Michael Boehnke; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Christian Fuchsberger Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Prabhat Jha; Chinthanie Ramasundarahettige; Victoria Landsman; Brian Rostron; Michael Thun; Robert N Anderson; Tim McAfee; Richard Peto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jadwiga Buchwald; Meghan J Chenoweth; Teemu Palviainen; Gu Zhu; Christian Benner; Scott Gordon; Tellervo Korhonen; Samuli Ripatti; Pamela A F Madden; Terho Lehtimäki; Olli T Raitakari; Veikko Salomaa; Richard J Rose; Tony P George; Caryn Lerman; Matti Pirinen; Nicholas G Martin; Jaakko Kaprio; Anu Loukola; Rachel F Tyndale Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 13.437