Clinical validation of a statin-benefit polygenic score using real-world cohorts of primary prevention participants
Haldar, T.; Lee, K.; teerlink, C.; Iyer, K. R.; Lu, M.; Bress, A. P.; Tcheandjieu, C.; Tsao, P. S.; Chang, K.-M.; Krauss, R. M.; Risch, N.; Iribarren, C.; Lynch, J.; Oni-Orisan, A.
Show abstract
BackgroundPolygenic risk scores derived from coronary artery disease genome-wide association studies are associated with statin relative risk reduction. ObjectiveExamine the relationship between coronary artery disease polygenic risk scores that include variants below thresholds of genome-wide significance and statin primary prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events. MethodsWe generated coronary artery disease polygenic risk scores for participants with no past evidence of myocardial infarction from three electronic health record-linked genetic biobanks: All of Us Research Program, Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging, and the Million Veteran Program. We scored each participant using three different polygenic risk scores: two with both genome-wide and sub-genome-wide significant variants (metaGRS and PRS2022) and one with only variants meeting genome-wide significance (164SNP). We used covariate-adjusted Cox regression models to compare risk of major adverse cardiovascular events between statin users and nonusers matched on age, sex, smoking status, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hypertension within strata defined by polygenic risk. For the primary analysis, we performed a meta-analysis across the three cohorts for the delta hazard ratio of statin effectiveness between high and low polygenic risk. ResultsAcross all cohorts, statin use was more strongly associated with reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events among participants with no myocardial infarction at index in the highest versus lowest polygenic risk score group for the PRS2022 (interaction beta 0.19, standard error 0.07, interaction P=2.3E-3) and metaGRS (interaction beta 0.14, standard error 0.07, interaction P=.02) scores. However, the association was not statistically significant (interaction beta 0.09, standard error 0.07, interaction P=.08) for the 164SNP risk score. ConclusionsWe demonstrated that the association between coronary artery disease polygenic risk scores and statin relative risk reduction can by enhanced with the inclusion of sub-genome-wide variants, paving the way for more research to establish clinical utility.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A polygenic risk score for coronary heart disease performs well in individuals aged 70 years and older 97%
- Coronary Artery Disease Risk of Familial Hypercholesterolemia Genetic Variants Independent of Historical Cholesterol Exposure 96%
- Dynamic Importance of Genomic and Clinical Risk for Coronary Artery Disease Over the Life Course 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Genetically Predicted IL-18 Inhibition and Risk of Cardiovascular Events: A Mendelian Randomization Study 95%
- Leveraging a genetic proxy to investigate the effects of lifelong cardiac sodium channel blockade 93%
- Aptamer Proteomics for Biomarker Discovery in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Biobank scale pharmacogenomics informs the genetic underpinnings of simvastatin use 93%
- Investigation of genomic and transcriptomic risk factors in clopidogrel response in African Americans 92%
- SLCO1B1 functional variants and statin-induced myopathy in people with recent genealogical ancestors from Africa: a population-based real-world study 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Discovery of Ancestry-specific Variants Associated with Clopidogrel Response among Caribbean Hispanics 93%
- Whole genome sequencing delineates regulatory and novel genic variants in childhood cardiomyopathy 88%
- Assessing the contribution of rare variants to congenital heart disease through a large-scale case-control exome study 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.