So Mi Jemma Cho1,2,3,4, Satoshi Koyama1,2, Yunfeng Ruan1,2, Kim Lannery1,2, Megan Wong1,2, Ezimamaka Ajufo5,6, Hokyou Lee3,7, Amit V Khera1,2,5,8,9, Michael C Honigberg1,2,5,8, Pradeep Natarajan1,2,5,8. 1. Program in Medical and Population Genetics and the Cardiovascular Disease Initiative, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2. Cardiovascular Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Integrative Research Center for Cerebrovascular and Cardiovascular Diseases, Seoul, Korea. 5. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 8. Cardiology Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 9. Verve Therapeutics, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Importance: Hypertension remains the major cardiovascular disease risk factor globally, but variability in measured blood pressure may result in suboptimal management. Whether genetic contributors to elevated blood pressure may complementarily inform cardiovascular disease risk assessment is unknown. Objective: To examine incident cardiovascular disease by blood pressure polygenic risk score independent of measured blood pressures and antihypertensive medication prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: The cohort study (UK Biobank) recruited UK residents aged 40 to 69 years between March 2006 and August 2010. Participants without a prior physician diagnosis of cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure, were included. Excluded were individuals with mismatch between self-reported and genotypically inferred sex, sex aneuploidy, missing genotype rates of 1% or greater, and excess genotypic heterozygosity. Data analyses were performed from September 25, 2021, to July 21, 2022. Exposures: Measured blood pressure and externally derived blood pressure polygenic risk score stratified by hypertension diagnosis and management, which included normal blood pressure (<130/80 mm Hg without antihypertensives), untreated hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥80 mm Hg without antihypertensives), and treated hypertension (current antihypertensives prescriptions). Main Outcomes and Measures: Composite of first incident myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular-related death. Results: Of the 331 078 study participants included (mean [SD] age at enrollment, 56.9 [8.1] years; 178 824 female [54.0%]), 83 094 (25.1%) had normal blood pressure, 197 597 (59.7%) had untreated hypertension, and 50 387 (15.2%) had treated hypertension. Over a median (IQR) follow-up of 11.1 (10.4-11.8) years, the primary outcome occurred in 15 293 participants. Among those with normal blood pressure, untreated hypertension, and treated hypertension, each SD increase in measured systolic blood pressure was associated with hazard ratios of 1.08 (95% CI, 0.93-1.25), 1.20 (95% CI, 1.16-1.23), and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.11-1.20), respectively, for the primary outcome. Among these same categories, each SD increase in genetically predicted systolic blood pressure was associated with increased hazard ratios of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05-1.20), 1.04 (95% CI, 1.01-1.07), and 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02-1.10), respectively, for the primary outcome independent of measured blood pressures and other covariates. Findings were similar for measured and genetically predicted diastolic blood pressure. Conclusions and Relevance: Blood pressure polygenic risk score may augment identification of individuals at heightened cardiovascular risk, including those with both normal blood pressure and hypertension. Whether it may also guide antihypertensive initiation or intensification requires further study.
Importance: Hypertension remains the major cardiovascular disease risk factor globally, but variability in measured blood pressure may result in suboptimal management. Whether genetic contributors to elevated blood pressure may complementarily inform cardiovascular disease risk assessment is unknown. Objective: To examine incident cardiovascular disease by blood pressure polygenic risk score independent of measured blood pressures and antihypertensive medication prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: The cohort study (UK Biobank) recruited UK residents aged 40 to 69 years between March 2006 and August 2010. Participants without a prior physician diagnosis of cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure, were included. Excluded were individuals with mismatch between self-reported and genotypically inferred sex, sex aneuploidy, missing genotype rates of 1% or greater, and excess genotypic heterozygosity. Data analyses were performed from September 25, 2021, to July 21, 2022. Exposures: Measured blood pressure and externally derived blood pressure polygenic risk score stratified by hypertension diagnosis and management, which included normal blood pressure (<130/80 mm Hg without antihypertensives), untreated hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥80 mm Hg without antihypertensives), and treated hypertension (current antihypertensives prescriptions). Main Outcomes and Measures: Composite of first incident myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular-related death. Results: Of the 331 078 study participants included (mean [SD] age at enrollment, 56.9 [8.1] years; 178 824 female [54.0%]), 83 094 (25.1%) had normal blood pressure, 197 597 (59.7%) had untreated hypertension, and 50 387 (15.2%) had treated hypertension. Over a median (IQR) follow-up of 11.1 (10.4-11.8) years, the primary outcome occurred in 15 293 participants. Among those with normal blood pressure, untreated hypertension, and treated hypertension, each SD increase in measured systolic blood pressure was associated with hazard ratios of 1.08 (95% CI, 0.93-1.25), 1.20 (95% CI, 1.16-1.23), and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.11-1.20), respectively, for the primary outcome. Among these same categories, each SD increase in genetically predicted systolic blood pressure was associated with increased hazard ratios of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05-1.20), 1.04 (95% CI, 1.01-1.07), and 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02-1.10), respectively, for the primary outcome independent of measured blood pressures and other covariates. Findings were similar for measured and genetically predicted diastolic blood pressure. Conclusions and Relevance: Blood pressure polygenic risk score may augment identification of individuals at heightened cardiovascular risk, including those with both normal blood pressure and hypertension. Whether it may also guide antihypertensive initiation or intensification requires further study.
Authors: Thomas Unger; Claudio Borghi; Fadi Charchar; Nadia A Khan; Neil R Poulter; Dorairaj Prabhakaran; Agustin Ramirez; Markus Schlaich; George S Stergiou; Maciej Tomaszewski; Richard D Wainford; Bryan Williams; Aletta E Schutte Journal: Hypertension Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Christopher C Chang; Carson C Chow; Laurent Cam Tellier; Shashaank Vattikuti; Shaun M Purcell; James J Lee Journal: Gigascience Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 6.524
Authors: Kristiina S Pälve; Katja Pahkala; Costan G Magnussen; Teemu Koivistoinen; Markus Juonala; Mika Kähönen; Terho Lehtimäki; Tapani Rönnemaa; Jorma S A Viikari; Olli T Raitakari Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Richard M Durbin; Erik P Garrison; Hyun Min Kang; Jan O Korbel; Jonathan L Marchini; Shane McCarthy; Gil A McVean; Gonçalo R Abecasis Journal: Nature Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Ayush Giri; Jacklyn N Hellwege; Jacob M Keaton; Jihwan Park; Chengxiang Qiu; Helen R Warren; Eric S Torstenson; Csaba P Kovesdy; Yan V Sun; Otis D Wilson; Cassianne Robinson-Cohen; Christianne L Roumie; Cecilia P Chung; Kelly A Birdwell; Scott M Damrauer; Scott L DuVall; Derek Klarin; Kelly Cho; Yu Wang; Evangelos Evangelou; Claudia P Cabrera; Louise V Wain; Rojesh Shrestha; Brian S Mautz; Elvis A Akwo; Muralidharan Sargurupremraj; Stéphanie Debette; Michael Boehnke; Laura J Scott; Jian'an Luan; Jing-Hua Zhao; Sara M Willems; Sébastien Thériault; Nabi Shah; Christopher Oldmeadow; Peter Almgren; Ruifang Li-Gao; Niek Verweij; Thibaud S Boutin; Massimo Mangino; Ioanna Ntalla; Elena Feofanova; Praveen Surendran; James P Cook; Savita Karthikeyan; Najim Lahrouchi; Chunyu Liu; Nuno Sepúlveda; Tom G Richardson; Aldi Kraja; Philippe Amouyel; Martin Farrall; Neil R Poulter; Markku Laakso; Eleftheria Zeggini; Peter Sever; Robert A Scott; Claudia Langenberg; Nicholas J Wareham; David Conen; Colin Neil Alexander Palmer; John Attia; Daniel I Chasman; Paul M Ridker; Olle Melander; Dennis Owen Mook-Kanamori; Pim van der Harst; Francesco Cucca; David Schlessinger; Caroline Hayward; Tim D Spector; Marjo-Riitta Jarvelin; Branwen J Hennig; Nicholas J Timpson; Wei-Qi Wei; Joshua C Smith; Yaomin Xu; Michael E Matheny; Edward E Siew; Cecilia Lindgren; Karl-Heinz Herzig; George Dedoussis; Joshua C Denny; Bruce M Psaty; Joanna M M Howson; Patricia B Munroe; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Mark J Caulfield; Paul Elliott; J Michael Gaziano; John Concato; Peter W F Wilson; Philip S Tsao; Digna R Velez Edwards; Katalin Susztak; Christopher J O'Donnell; Adriana M Hung; Todd L Edwards Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Finlay A McAlister; Brendan Cord Lethebe; Alexander A Leung; Rajdeep S Padwal; Tyler Williamson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Victor M Castro; Vivian Gainer; Nich Wattanasin; Barbara Benoit; Andrew Cagan; Bhaswati Ghosh; Sergey Goryachev; Reeta Metta; Heekyong Park; David Wang; Michael Mendis; Martin Rees; Christopher Herrick; Shawn N Murphy Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 4.497