Back

Candidate Genes from an FDA-Approved Algorithm Fail to Predict Opioid Use Disorder Risk in Over 450,000 Veterans

Davis, C. N.; Jinwala, Z.; Hatoum, A. S.; Toikumo, S. I.; Agrawal, A.; Rentsch, C. T.; Edenberg, H. J.; Baurley, J. W.; Hartwell, E. E.; Crist, R. C.; Gray, J.; Justice, A. C.; Gelernter, J.; Kember, R. L.; Kranzler, H.

2024-05-16 addiction medicine
10.1101/2024.05.16.24307486 medRxiv
Show abstract

ImportanceRecently, the Food and Drug Administration gave pre-marketing approval to algorithm based on its purported ability to identify genetic risk for opioid use disorder. However, the clinical utility of the candidate genes comprising the algorithm has not been independently demonstrated. ObjectiveTo assess the utility of 15 variants in candidate genes from an algorithm intended to predict opioid use disorder risk. DesignThis case-control study examined the association of 15 candidate genetic variants with risk of opioid use disorder using available electronic health record data from December 20, 1992 to September 30, 2022. SettingElectronic health record data, including pharmacy records, from Million Veteran Program participants across the United States. ParticipantsParticipants were opioid-exposed individuals enrolled in the Million Veteran Program (n = 452,664). Opioid use disorder cases were identified using International Classification of Disease diagnostic codes, and controls were individuals with no opioid use disorder diagnosis. ExposuresNumber of risk alleles present across 15 candidate genetic variants. Main Outcome and MeasuresPredictive performance of 15 genetic variants for opioid use disorder risk assessed via logistic regression and machine learning models. ResultsOpioid exposed individuals (n=33,669 cases) were on average 61.15 (SD = 13.37) years old, 90.46% male, and had varied genetic similarity to global reference panels. Collectively, the 15 candidate genetic variants accounted for 0.4% of variation in opioid use disorder risk. The accuracy of the ensemble machine learning model using the 15 genes as predictors was 52.8% (95% CI = 52.1 - 53.6%) in an independent testing sample. Conclusions and RelevanceCandidate genes that comprise the approved algorithm do not meet reasonable standards of efficacy in predicting opioid use disorder risk. Given the algorithms limited predictive accuracy, its use in clinical care would lead to high rates of false positive and negative findings. More clinically useful models are needed to identify individuals at risk of developing opioid use disorder. Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSHow well do candidate genes from an algorithm designed to predict risk of opioid use disorder, which recently received pre-marketing approval by the Food and Drug Administration, perform in a large, independent sample? FindingsIn a case-control study of over 450,000 individuals, the 15 genetic variants from candidate genes collectively accounted for 0.4% of the variation in opioid use disorder risk. In this independent sample, the SNPs predicted risk at a level of accuracy near random chance (52.8%). MeaningCandidate genes from the approved genetic risk algorithm do not meet standards of reasonable clinical efficacy in assessing risk of opioid use disorder.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.2%
2
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.0%
3
Addiction
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
50% of probability mass above
4
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
5
Addiction Biology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
6
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 42%
3.2%
8
International Journal of Drug Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
9
Neuropsychopharmacology
134 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
10
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.3%
11
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
12
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
13
Addiction Neuroscience
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
14
American Journal of Psychiatry
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
16
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
17
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
18
Biological Psychiatry
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
19
British Journal of Pharmacology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
20
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.6%
21
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
22
Psychopharmacology
59 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%