Search

Clinical trials for preventative therapies are complex and costly endeavors focused on individuals likely to develop disease in a short time frame, randomizing them to treatment groups, and following them over time. In such trials, statistical power is governed by the rate of disease events in each group and cost is determined by randomization, treatment, and follow-up. Strategies that increase the rate of disease events by enrolling individuals with high risk of disease can significantly reduce study size, duration, and cost. Comprehensive study of common, complex diseases has resulted in a growing list of robustly associated genetic markers. Here, we evaluate the utility--in terms of trial size, duration, and cost--of enriching prevention trial samples by combining clinical information with genetic risk scores to identify individuals at greater risk of disease. We also describe a framework for utilizing genetic risk scores in these trials and evaluating the associated cost and time savings. With type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes (T2D), myocardial infarction (MI), and advanced age-related macular degeneration (AMD) as examples, we illustrate the potential and limitations of using genetic data for prevention trial design. We illustrate settings where incorporating genetic information could reduce trial cost or duration considerably, as well as settings where potential savings are negligible. Results are strongly dependent on the genetic architecture of the disease, but we also show that these benefits should increase as the list of robustly associated markers for each disease grows and as large samples of genotyped individuals become available.

It has been hypothesized that, in aggregate, rare variants in coding regions of genes explain a substantial fraction of the heritability of common diseases. We sequenced the exomes of 1,000 Danish cases with common forms of type 2 diabetes (including body mass index > 27.5 kg/m2 and hypertension) and 1,000 healthy controls to an average depth of 56×. Our simulations suggest that our study had the statistical power to detect at least one causal gene (a gene containing causal mutations) if the heritability of these common diseases was explained by rare variants in the coding regions of a limited number of genes. We applied a series of gene-based tests to detect such susceptibility genes. However, no gene showed a significant association with disease risk after we corrected for the number of genes analyzed. Thus, we could reject a model for the genetic architecture of type 2 diabetes where rare nonsynonymous variants clustered in a modest number of genes (fewer than 20) are responsible for the majority of disease risk.