Risk prediction for coronary heart disease by a genetic risk score - results from the Heinz Nixdorf Recall study.

4区 医学 Q4 Medicine BMC Medical Genetics Pub Date : 2020-09-10 DOI:10.1186/s12881-020-01113-y
Sonali Pechlivanis, Nils Lehmann, Per Hoffmann, Markus M Nöthen, Karl-Heinz Jöckel, Raimund Erbel, Susanne Moebus
{"title":"Risk prediction for coronary heart disease by a genetic risk score - results from the Heinz Nixdorf Recall study.","authors":"Sonali Pechlivanis, Nils Lehmann, Per Hoffmann, Markus M Nöthen, Karl-Heinz Jöckel, Raimund Erbel, Susanne Moebus","doi":"10.1186/s12881-020-01113-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A Genetic risk score for coronary artery disease (CAD) improves the ability of predicting coronary heart disease (CHD). It is unclear whether i) the use of a CAD genetic risk score is superior to the measurement of coronary artery calcification (CAC) for CHD risk assessment and ii) the CHD risk assessment using a CAD genetic risk score differs between men and women.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included 4041 participants (age-range: 45-76 years, 1919 men) of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall study without CHD or stroke at baseline. A standardized weighted CAD genetic risk score was constructed using 70 known genetic variants. The risk score was divided into quintiles (Q1-Q5). We specified low (Q1), intermediate (Q2-Q4) and high (Q5) genetic risk groups. Incident CHD was defined as fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke and coronary death. The association between the genetic risk score and genetic risk groups with incident CHD was assessed using Cox models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95%-confidence intervals (CI). The models were adjusted by age and sex (Model1), as well as by established CHD risk factors (RF) and CAC (Model2). The analyses were further stratified by sex and controlled for multiple testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During a median follow-up time of 11.6 ± 3.7 years, 343 participants experienced CHD events (219 men). Per-standard deviation (SD) increase in the genetic risk score was associated with 18% increased risk for incident CHD (Model1: p = 0.002) which did not change after full adjustment (Model2: HR = 1.18 per-SD (p = 0.003)). In Model2 we observed a 60% increased CHD risk in the high (p = 0.009) compared to the low genetic risk group. Stratifying by sex, only men showed statistically significantly higher risk for CHD (Model2: HR = 1.23 per-SD (p = 0.004); intermediate: HR = 1.52 (p = 0.04) and high: HR = 1.88 (p = 0.008)) with no statistically significant risk observed in women.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest that the CAD genetic risk score could be useful for CHD risk prediction, at least in men belonging to the higher genetic risk group, but it does not outbalance the value of CT-based quantification of CAC which works independently on both men and women and allows better risk stratification in both the genders.</p>","PeriodicalId":9015,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Genetics","volume":" ","pages":"178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7487988/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12881-020-01113-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A Genetic risk score for coronary artery disease (CAD) improves the ability of predicting coronary heart disease (CHD). It is unclear whether i) the use of a CAD genetic risk score is superior to the measurement of coronary artery calcification (CAC) for CHD risk assessment and ii) the CHD risk assessment using a CAD genetic risk score differs between men and women.

Methods: We included 4041 participants (age-range: 45-76 years, 1919 men) of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall study without CHD or stroke at baseline. A standardized weighted CAD genetic risk score was constructed using 70 known genetic variants. The risk score was divided into quintiles (Q1-Q5). We specified low (Q1), intermediate (Q2-Q4) and high (Q5) genetic risk groups. Incident CHD was defined as fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke and coronary death. The association between the genetic risk score and genetic risk groups with incident CHD was assessed using Cox models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95%-confidence intervals (CI). The models were adjusted by age and sex (Model1), as well as by established CHD risk factors (RF) and CAC (Model2). The analyses were further stratified by sex and controlled for multiple testing.

Results: During a median follow-up time of 11.6 ± 3.7 years, 343 participants experienced CHD events (219 men). Per-standard deviation (SD) increase in the genetic risk score was associated with 18% increased risk for incident CHD (Model1: p = 0.002) which did not change after full adjustment (Model2: HR = 1.18 per-SD (p = 0.003)). In Model2 we observed a 60% increased CHD risk in the high (p = 0.009) compared to the low genetic risk group. Stratifying by sex, only men showed statistically significantly higher risk for CHD (Model2: HR = 1.23 per-SD (p = 0.004); intermediate: HR = 1.52 (p = 0.04) and high: HR = 1.88 (p = 0.008)) with no statistically significant risk observed in women.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that the CAD genetic risk score could be useful for CHD risk prediction, at least in men belonging to the higher genetic risk group, but it does not outbalance the value of CT-based quantification of CAC which works independently on both men and women and allows better risk stratification in both the genders.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过遗传风险评分预测冠心病风险--Heinz Nixdorf Recall 研究的结果。
背景:冠状动脉疾病(CAD)遗传风险评分可提高预测冠心病(CHD)的能力。目前还不清楚 i) 在冠心病风险评估中使用冠状动脉疾病遗传风险评分是否优于冠状动脉钙化(CAC)测量;ii) 使用冠状动脉疾病遗传风险评分进行冠心病风险评估在男性和女性之间是否存在差异:我们纳入了海因茨-尼克斯多夫回顾研究的 4041 名参与者(年龄范围:45-76 岁,1919 名男性),他们基线时未患有冠心病或中风。利用 70 个已知基因变异构建了标准化加权 CAD 遗传风险评分。风险评分分为五等分(Q1-Q5)。我们规定了低遗传风险组(Q1)、中遗传风险组(Q2-Q4)和高遗传风险组(Q5)。冠心病是指致命和非致命性心肌梗死、中风和冠心病死亡。遗传风险评分和遗传风险组别与冠心病发病率之间的关系采用 Cox 模型进行评估,以估计危险比 (HR) 和 95% 置信区间 (CI)。模型根据年龄和性别(模型1)以及已确定的冠心病风险因素(RF)和CAC(模型2)进行了调整。分析按性别进一步分层,并控制多重检验:中位随访时间为 11.6 ± 3.7 年,343 名参与者(219 名男性)发生了冠心病事件。遗传风险评分每标准差(SD)的增加与发生冠心病的风险增加 18% 有关(模型 1:P = 0.002),经全面调整后,该风险未发生变化(模型 2:HR = 1.18/SD):HR = 1.18 per-SD (p = 0.003))。在模型 2 中,我们观察到与低遗传风险组相比,高遗传风险组的冠心病风险增加了 60% (p = 0.009)。按性别分类,只有男性患冠心病的风险在统计学上明显更高(模型 2.HR = 1.23 per-SD):HR = 1.23 per-SD (p = 0.004);中间模型:HR = 1.52 per-SD (p = 0.004):HR=1.52(p=0.04),高:HR=1.88(p=0.008)),女性无明显统计学风险:我们的研究结果表明,CAD 遗传风险评分可用于预测冠心病风险,至少对属于高遗传风险组的男性有用,但它并不能抵消基于 CT 的 CAC 定量的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Genetics
BMC Medical Genetics 医学-遗传学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Genetics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in the effects of genetic variation in individuals, families and among populations in relation to human health and disease. Note: BMC Medical Genetics is now closed. This journal has merged with BMC Medical Genomics, a broad-scope, open access community journal for all medical genetics and genomics research.
期刊最新文献
Retraction Note: lncRNA TINCR sponges miR-214-5p to upregulate ROCK1 in hepatocellular carcinoma. A non-synonymous variant rs12614 of complement factor B associated with risk of chronic hepatitis B in a Korean population. Application of next generation sequencing in genetic counseling a case of a couple at risk of cystinosis. DGAT1 mutations leading to delayed chronic diarrhoea: a case report. Case report: progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis type 3 with compound heterozygous ABCB4 variants diagnosed 15 years after liver transplantation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1