Dataset Information

Risk prediction by genetic risk scores for coronary heart disease is independent of self-reported family history.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Genetic risk scores (GRSs) have been associated with coronary heart disease (CHD) in large studies. We asked whether expanding an established 27-variant GRS (GRS27) to a 50-variant GRS (GRS50) improved CHD prediction and whether GRSs are independent of self-reported family history of CHD.

Methods and results

The association between GRSs and incident CHD was assessed in Cox models adjusting for established risk factors in 23 595 participants of the Malmö Diet and Cancer study--a prospective, population-based study. During a median follow-up of 14.4 years, 2213 participants experienced a first CHD event. After adjustment for established risk factors, both GRS27 and GRS50 were associated with incident CHD [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.70 for high (top quintile) vs. low (bottom quintile) of GRS27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.48-1.94; Ptrend = 1.6 × 10(-15) and HR = 1.92 for GRS50; 95% CI: 1.67-2.20; Ptrend = 6.2 × 10(-22)]. Adding 23 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to GRS27 improved risk prediction (P = 3 × 10(-6)). Further adjustment for self-reported family history did not appreciably change the risk estimates of either GRS27 (HR = 1.65; 95% CI: 1.45-1.89) or GRS50 (HR = 1.87; 95% CI: 1.63-2.14). The addition of GRS50 to established risk factors, including self-reported family history, improved discrimination (P < 0.0001) and reclassification (continuous net reclassification improvement index = 0.17, P < 0.0001). In young participants (below median age), those with high GRS50 had 2.4-fold greater risk (95% CI: 1.85-3.12) than those with low GRS50.

Conclusion

The addition of 23 SNPs to an existing GRS27 improved CHD risk prediction and was independent of self-reported family history. Coronary heart disease risk assessment by GRS could be particularly useful in young individuals.

SUBMITTER: Tada H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4744619 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study compared risk discrimination for the prediction of coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths for the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) Risk Score (with and without coronary artery calcium [CAC]), and of simple addition of CAC to the PCE.BackgroundThe PCE predict 10-year risk of atherosclerotic CVD events, and the MESA Risk Score predicts risk of CHD. Their comparative performance for the prediction of fatal events is poorly understood.MethodsWe evaluated 53,487 patients ages 45 to 79 years from the CAC Consortium, a retrospective cohort study of asymptomatic individuals referred for clinical CAC scoring. Risk discrimination was measured using C-statistics.ResultsMean age was 57 years, 35% were women, and 39% had CAC of 0. There were 421 CHD and 775 CVD deaths over a mean 12-year follow-up. In the overall study population, discrimination with the MESA Risk Score with CAC and the PCE was almost identical for both outcomes (C-statistics: 0.80 and 0.79 for CHD death, 0.77 and 0.78 for CVD death, respectively). Addition of CAC to the PCE improved risk discrimination, yielding the largest C-statistics. The MESA Risk Score with CAC and the PCE plus CAC showed the best discrimination among the 45% of patients with 5% to 20% estimated risk. Secondary analyses by estimated CVD risk strata showed modestly improved risk discrimination with CAC also among low- and high-estimated risk groups.ConclusionsOur findings support the current guideline recommendation to use, among available risk scores, the PCE for initial risk assessment and to use CAC for further risk assessment in a broad borderline and intermediate risk group. Also, in select individuals at low or high estimated risk, CAC modestly improved discrimination. Studies in unselected populations will lead to further understanding of the potential value of tools combining risk scores and CAC for optimal risk assessment.