In:
PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science (PLoS), Vol. 18, No. 1 ( 2021-1-14), p. e1003498-
Abstract:
Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can stratify populations into cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk groups. We aimed to quantify the potential advantage of adding information on PRSs to conventional risk factors in the primary prevention of CVD. Methods and findings Using data from UK Biobank on 306,654 individuals without a history of CVD and not on lipid-lowering treatments (mean age [SD]: 56.0 [8.0] years; females: 57%; median follow-up: 8.1 years), we calculated measures of risk discrimination and reclassification upon addition of PRSs to risk factors in a conventional risk prediction model (i.e., age, sex, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, history of diabetes, and total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol). We then modelled the implications of initiating guideline-recommended statin therapy in a primary care setting using incidence rates from 2.1 million individuals from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The C-index, a measure of risk discrimination, was 0.710 (95% CI 0.703–0.717) for a CVD prediction model containing conventional risk predictors alone. Addition of information on PRSs increased the C-index by 0.012 (95% CI 0.009–0.015), and resulted in continuous net reclassification improvements of about 10% and 12% in cases and non-cases, respectively. If a PRS were assessed in the entire UK primary care population aged 40–75 years, assuming that statin therapy would be initiated in accordance with the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines (i.e., for persons with a predicted risk of ≥10% and for those with certain other risk factors, such as diabetes, irrespective of their 10-year predicted risk), then it could help prevent 1 additional CVD event for approximately every 5,750 individuals screened. By contrast, targeted assessment only among people at intermediate (i.e., 5% to 〈 10%) 10-year CVD risk could help prevent 1 additional CVD event for approximately every 340 individuals screened. Such a targeted strategy could help prevent 7% more CVD events than conventional risk prediction alone. Potential gains afforded by assessment of PRSs on top of conventional risk factors would be about 1.5-fold greater than those provided by assessment of C-reactive protein, a plasma biomarker included in some risk prediction guidelines. Potential limitations of this study include its restriction to European ancestry participants and a lack of health economic evaluation. Conclusions Our results suggest that addition of PRSs to conventional risk factors can modestly enhance prediction of first-onset CVD and could translate into population health benefits if used at scale.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1549-1676
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.g001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.g002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.g003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.g004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.g005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.t001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.t002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s007
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s008
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s009
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s010
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s011
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s012
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s013
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s014
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s015
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s016
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s017
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s018
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s019
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s020
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s021
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s022
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s023
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s024
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s025
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s026
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s027
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s028
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s029
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s030
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s031
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.s032
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.r001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.r002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.r003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.r004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.r005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.r006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.r007
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003498.r008
Language:
English
Publisher:
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Publication Date:
2021
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2164823-2