人群异质性与冠心病多基因评分的选择。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Personalized Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-26 DOI:10.3390/jpm14101025
Carla Debernardi, Angelo Savoca, Alessandro De Gregorio, Elisabetta Casalone, Miriam Rosselli, Elton Jalis Herman, Cecilia Di Primio, Rosario Tumino, Sabina Sieri, Paolo Vineis, Salvatore Panico, Carlotta Sacerdote, Diego Ardissino, Rosanna Asselta, Giuseppe Matullo
{"title":"人群异质性与冠心病多基因评分的选择。","authors":"Carla Debernardi, Angelo Savoca, Alessandro De Gregorio, Elisabetta Casalone, Miriam Rosselli, Elton Jalis Herman, Cecilia Di Primio, Rosario Tumino, Sabina Sieri, Paolo Vineis, Salvatore Panico, Carlotta Sacerdote, Diego Ardissino, Rosanna Asselta, Giuseppe Matullo","doi":"10.3390/jpm14101025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>The identification of coronary artery disease (CAD) high-risk individuals is a major clinical need for timely diagnosis and intervention. Many different polygenic scores (PGSs) for CAD risk are available today to estimate the genetic risk. It is necessary to carefully choose the score to use, in particular for studies on populations, which are not adequately represented in the large datasets of European biobanks, such as the Italian one. This work aimed to analyze which PGS had the best performance within the Italian population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used two Italian independent cohorts: the EPICOR case-control study (576 individuals) and the Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB) Italian study (3359 individuals). We evaluated 266 PGS for cardiovascular disease risk from the PGS Catalog, selecting 51 for CAD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Distributions between patients and controls were significantly different for 49 scores (<i>p</i>-value < 0.01). Only five PGS have been trained and tested for the European population specifically. PGS003727 demonstrated to be the most accurate when evaluated independently (EPICOR AUC = 0.68; ATVB AUC = 0.80). Taking into account the conventional CAD risk factors further enhanced the performance of the model, particularly in the ATVB study (<i>p</i>-value = 0.0003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>European CAD PGS could have different risk estimates in peculiar populations, such as the Italian one, as well as in various geographical macro areas. Therefore, further evaluation is recommended for clinical applicability.</p>","PeriodicalId":16722,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","volume":"14 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11508882/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Population Heterogeneity and Selection of Coronary Artery Disease Polygenic Scores.\",\"authors\":\"Carla Debernardi, Angelo Savoca, Alessandro De Gregorio, Elisabetta Casalone, Miriam Rosselli, Elton Jalis Herman, Cecilia Di Primio, Rosario Tumino, Sabina Sieri, Paolo Vineis, Salvatore Panico, Carlotta Sacerdote, Diego Ardissino, Rosanna Asselta, Giuseppe Matullo\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jpm14101025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>The identification of coronary artery disease (CAD) high-risk individuals is a major clinical need for timely diagnosis and intervention. Many different polygenic scores (PGSs) for CAD risk are available today to estimate the genetic risk. It is necessary to carefully choose the score to use, in particular for studies on populations, which are not adequately represented in the large datasets of European biobanks, such as the Italian one. This work aimed to analyze which PGS had the best performance within the Italian population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used two Italian independent cohorts: the EPICOR case-control study (576 individuals) and the Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB) Italian study (3359 individuals). We evaluated 266 PGS for cardiovascular disease risk from the PGS Catalog, selecting 51 for CAD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Distributions between patients and controls were significantly different for 49 scores (<i>p</i>-value < 0.01). Only five PGS have been trained and tested for the European population specifically. PGS003727 demonstrated to be the most accurate when evaluated independently (EPICOR AUC = 0.68; ATVB AUC = 0.80). Taking into account the conventional CAD risk factors further enhanced the performance of the model, particularly in the ATVB study (<i>p</i>-value = 0.0003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>European CAD PGS could have different risk estimates in peculiar populations, such as the Italian one, as well as in various geographical macro areas. Therefore, further evaluation is recommended for clinical applicability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16722,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Personalized Medicine\",\"volume\":\"14 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11508882/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Personalized Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14101025\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14101025","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:识别冠状动脉疾病(CAD)高风险人群是及时诊断和干预的主要临床需求。目前有许多不同的 CAD 风险多基因评分(PGS)可用于估计遗传风险。有必要谨慎选择要使用的评分,尤其是对欧洲生物库(如意大利生物库)的大型数据集中没有充分代表的人群进行研究时。这项工作旨在分析哪种 PGS 在意大利人群中表现最佳:我们使用了两个意大利独立队列:EPICOR 病例对照研究(576 人)和意大利动脉粥样硬化、血栓和血管生物学(ATVB)研究(3359 人)。我们对 PGS 目录中的 266 例 PGS 进行了心血管疾病风险评估,从中筛选出 51 例患有 CAD:结果:在 49 项评分中,患者和对照组的分布有显著差异(P 值 < 0.01)。只有五项 PGS 专门针对欧洲人群进行了培训和测试。在独立评估时,PGS003727 被证明是最准确的(EPICOR AUC = 0.68;ATVB AUC = 0.80)。考虑到传统的 CAD 风险因素后,模型的性能进一步提高,尤其是在 ATVB 研究中(p 值 = 0.0003):结论:欧洲 CAD PGS 在特殊人群(如意大利人)以及不同的地理宏观地区可能会有不同的风险估计值。因此,建议进一步评估临床适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Population Heterogeneity and Selection of Coronary Artery Disease Polygenic Scores.

Background/objectives: The identification of coronary artery disease (CAD) high-risk individuals is a major clinical need for timely diagnosis and intervention. Many different polygenic scores (PGSs) for CAD risk are available today to estimate the genetic risk. It is necessary to carefully choose the score to use, in particular for studies on populations, which are not adequately represented in the large datasets of European biobanks, such as the Italian one. This work aimed to analyze which PGS had the best performance within the Italian population.

Methods: We used two Italian independent cohorts: the EPICOR case-control study (576 individuals) and the Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB) Italian study (3359 individuals). We evaluated 266 PGS for cardiovascular disease risk from the PGS Catalog, selecting 51 for CAD.

Results: Distributions between patients and controls were significantly different for 49 scores (p-value < 0.01). Only five PGS have been trained and tested for the European population specifically. PGS003727 demonstrated to be the most accurate when evaluated independently (EPICOR AUC = 0.68; ATVB AUC = 0.80). Taking into account the conventional CAD risk factors further enhanced the performance of the model, particularly in the ATVB study (p-value = 0.0003).

Conclusions: European CAD PGS could have different risk estimates in peculiar populations, such as the Italian one, as well as in various geographical macro areas. Therefore, further evaluation is recommended for clinical applicability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Personalized Medicine
Journal of Personalized Medicine Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1878
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Personalized Medicine (JPM; ISSN 2075-4426) is an international, open access journal aimed at bringing all aspects of personalized medicine to one platform. JPM publishes cutting edge, innovative preclinical and translational scientific research and technologies related to personalized medicine (e.g., pharmacogenomics/proteomics, systems biology). JPM recognizes that personalized medicine—the assessment of genetic, environmental and host factors that cause variability of individuals—is a challenging, transdisciplinary topic that requires discussions from a range of experts. For a comprehensive perspective of personalized medicine, JPM aims to integrate expertise from the molecular and translational sciences, therapeutics and diagnostics, as well as discussions of regulatory, social, ethical and policy aspects. We provide a forum to bring together academic and clinical researchers, biotechnology, diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies, health professionals, regulatory and ethical experts, and government and regulatory authorities.
期刊最新文献
Associations of Amino Acids with the Risk of Prediabetes: A Case-Control Study from Kazakhstan. Efficacy of Second-Line Biological Therapies in Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis Patients with Prior Failure of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy: A Multi-Center Study. Targeting Sodium in Heart Failure. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Elexacaftor, Tezacaftor, and Ivacaftor in Adult People with Cystic Fibrosis. Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Technology in Glaucoma: A Review.
×
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