30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Predictive Accuracy of a Polygenic Risk Score Compared With a Clinical Risk Score for Incident Coronary Heart Disease

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Does a polygenic predictor of coronary heart disease (CHD) that incorporates millions of common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) improve risk stratification compared with a guideline-based risk equation? In a retrospective cohort study that included 7237 middle-aged participants of European ancestry free of clinical CHD at baseline, a polygenic risk score added to the 2013 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association pooled cohort equations did not significantly improve discriminative accuracy (measured by C statistic), calibration (comparing observed vs expected event probabilities), or net reclassification improvement (using a 10-year risk threshold of 7.5%). Addition of a polygenic risk score to a clinical risk score for incident CHD may not provide important information in a white middle-aged population. Polygenic risk scores comprising millions of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) could be useful for population-wide coronary heart disease (CHD) screening. To determine whether a polygenic risk score improves prediction of CHD compared with a guideline-recommended clinical risk equation. A retrospective cohort study of the predictive accuracy of a previously validated polygenic risk score was assessed among 4847 adults of white European ancestry, aged 45 through 79 years, participating in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study and 2390 participating in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) from 1996 through December 31, 2015, the final day of follow-up. The performance of the polygenic risk score was compared with that of the 2013 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association pooled cohort equations. Genetic risk was computed for each participant by summing the product of the weights and allele dosage across 6 630 149 SNPs. Weights were based on an international genome-wide association study. Prediction of 10-year first CHD events (including myocardial infarctions, fatal coronary events, silent infarctions, revascularization procedures, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) assessed using measures of model discrimination, calibration, and net reclassification improvement (NRI). The study population included 4847 adults from the ARIC study (mean [SD] age, 62.9 [5.6] years; 56.4% women) and 2390 adults from the MESA cohort (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [9.6] years; 52.2% women). Incident CHD events occurred in 696 participants (14.4%) and 227 participants (9.5%), respectively, over median follow-up of 15.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 6.3 years) and 14.2 (IQR, 2.5 years) years. The polygenic risk score was significantly associated with 10-year CHD incidence in ARIC with hazard ratios per SD increment of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.15 to 1.34) and in MESA, 1.38 (95% CI, 1.21 to 1.58). Addition of the polygenic risk score to the pooled cohort equations did not significantly increase the C statistic in either cohort (ARIC, change in C statistic, −0.001; 95% CI, −0.009 to 0.006; MESA, 0.021; 95% CI, −0.0004 to 0.043). At the 10-year risk threshold of 7.5%, the addition of the polygenic risk score to the pooled cohort equations did not provide significant improvement in reclassification in either ARIC (NRI, 0.018, 95% CI, −0.012 to 0.036) or MESA (NRI, 0.001, 95% CI, −0.038 to 0.076). The polygenic risk score did not significantly improve calibration in either cohort. In this analysis of 2 cohorts of US adults, the polygenic risk score was associated with incident coronary heart disease events but did not significantly improve discrimination, calibration, or risk reclassification compared with conventional predictors. These findings suggest that a polygenic risk score may not enhance risk prediction in a general, white middle-aged population. This pooled cohort involving US adults with white European ancestry compares the accuracy of a polygenic risk score vs 2013 ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations for predicting 10-year risk of coronary heart disease.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk scores

          Initial expectations for genome-wide association studies were high, as such studies promised to rapidly transform personalized medicine with individualized disease risk predictions, prevention strategies and treatments. Early findings, however, revealed a more complex genetic architecture than was anticipated for most common diseases - complexity that seemed to limit the immediate utility of these findings. As a result, the practice of utilizing the DNA of an individual to predict disease has been judged to provide little to no useful information. Nevertheless, recent efforts have begun to demonstrate the utility of polygenic risk profiling to identify groups of individuals who could benefit from the knowledge of their probabilistic susceptibility to disease. In this context, we review the evidence supporting the personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk profiling.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker.

            M. S. Pepe (2004)
            A marker strongly associated with outcome (or disease) is often assumed to be effective for classifying persons according to their current or future outcome. However, for this assumption to be true, the associated odds ratio must be of a magnitude rarely seen in epidemiologic studies. In this paper, an illustration of the relation between odds ratios and receiver operating characteristic curves shows, for example, that a marker with an odds ratio of as high as 3 is in fact a very poor classification tool. If a marker identifies 10% of controls as positive (false positives) and has an odds ratio of 3, then it will correctly identify only 25% of cases as positive (true positives). The authors illustrate that a single measure of association such as an odds ratio does not meaningfully describe a marker's ability to classify subjects. Appropriate statistical methods for assessing and reporting the classification power of a marker are described. In addition, the serious pitfalls of using more traditional methods based on parameters in logistic regression models are illustrated.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Genomic Risk Prediction of Coronary Artery Disease in 480,000 Adults

              Background Coronary artery disease (CAD) has substantial heritability and a polygenic architecture. However, the potential of genomic risk scores to help predict CAD outcomes has not been evaluated comprehensively, because available studies have involved limited genomic scope and limited sample sizes. Objectives This study sought to construct a genomic risk score for CAD and to estimate its potential as a screening tool for primary prevention. Methods Using a meta-analytic approach to combine large-scale, genome-wide, and targeted genetic association data, we developed a new genomic risk score for CAD (metaGRS) consisting of 1.7 million genetic variants. We externally tested metaGRS, both by itself and in combination with available data on conventional risk factors, in 22,242 CAD cases and 460,387 noncases from the UK Biobank. Results The hazard ratio (HR) for CAD was 1.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.68 to 1.73) per SD increase in metaGRS, an association larger than any other externally tested genetic risk score previously published. The metaGRS stratified individuals into significantly different life course trajectories of CAD risk, with those in the top 20% of metaGRS distribution having an HR of 4.17 (95% CI: 3.97 to 4.38) compared with those in the bottom 20%. The corresponding HR was 2.83 (95% CI: 2.61 to 3.07) among individuals on lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medications. The metaGRS had a higher C-index (C = 0.623; 95% CI: 0.615 to 0.631) for incident CAD than any of 6 conventional factors (smoking, diabetes, hypertension, body mass index, self-reported high cholesterol, and family history). For men in the top 20% of metaGRS with >2 conventional factors, 10% cumulative risk of CAD was reached by 48 years of age. Conclusions The genomic score developed and evaluated here substantially advances the concept of using genomic information to stratify individuals with different trajectories of CAD risk and highlights the potential for genomic screening in early life to complement conventional risk prediction.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA
                JAMA
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                0098-7484
                February 18 2020
                February 18 2020
                : 323
                : 7
                : 627
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
                [2 ]Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
                [3 ]Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics, Torrance, California
                [4 ]Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
                [5 ]Vanderbilt O'Brien Center for Kidney Disease, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
                [6 ]Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health; and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
                [7 ]Department of Public Health Sciences, Center for Public Health Genomics, Charlottesville, Virginia
                [8 ]Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
                [9 ]Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
                [10 ]Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Torrance, California12
                [11 ]Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
                [12 ]Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
                Article
                10.1001/jama.2019.21782
                7042849
                32068817
                3b09a7a8-342d-4da5-be4b-07f210a91666
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article