Search

Background Genetic studies may help identify causal pathways; therefore, we sought to identify genetic determinants of ideal CVH and their association with CVD outcomes in the multi-population Veteran Administration Million Veteran Program. Methods An ideal health score (IHS) was calculated from 3 clinical factors (blood pressure, total cholesterol, and blood glucose levels) and 3 behavioral factors (smoking status, physical activity, and BMI), ascertained at baseline. Multi-population genome-wide association study (GWAS) was performed on IHS and binary ideal health using linear and logistic regression, respectively. Using the genome-wide significant SNPs from the IHS GWAS, we created a weighted IHS polygenic risk score (PRSIHS) which was used (i) to conduct a phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) of associations between PRSIHS and ICD-9 phenotypes and (ii) to further test for associations with mortality and selected CVD outcomes using logistic and Cox regression and, as an instrumental variable, in Mendelian Randomization. Results The discovery and replication cohorts consisted of 142,404 (119,129 European American (EUR); 16,495 African American (AFR)), and 45,766 (37,646 EUR; 5,366 AFR) participants, respectively. The mean age was 65.8 years (SD = 11.2) and 92.7% were male. Overall, 4.2% exhibited ideal CVH based on the clinical and behavioral factors. In the multi-population meta-analysis, variants at 17 loci were associated with IHS and each had known GWAS associations with multiple components of the IHS. PheWAS analysis in 456,026 participants showed that increased PRSIHS was associated with a lower odds ratio for many CVD outcomes and risk factors. Both IHS and PRSIHS measures of ideal CVH were associated with significantly less CVD outcomes and CVD mortality. Conclusion A set of high interest genetic variants contribute to the presence of ideal CVH in a multi-ethnic cohort of US Veterans. Genetically influenced ideal CVH is associated with lower odds of CVD outcomes and mortality.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant global threat. However, despite urgent need, there remains uncertainty surrounding best practices for pharmaceutical interventions to treat COVID-19. In particular, conflicting evidence has emerged surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, alone or in combination, for COVID-19. The COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator convened by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, in collaboration with Friends of Cancer Research, assembled experts from the health systems research, regulatory science, data science, and epidemiology to participate in a large parallel analysis of different data sets to further explore the effectiveness of these treatments.MethodsElectronic health record (EHR) and claims data were extracted from seven separate databases. Parallel analyses were undertaken on data extracted from each source. Each analysis examined time to mortality in hospitalized patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and the two in combination as compared to patients not treated with either drug. Cox proportional hazards models were used, and propensity score methods were undertaken to adjust for confounding. Frequencies of adverse events in each treatment group were also examined.ResultsNeither hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin, alone or in combination, were significantly associated with time to mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. No treatment groups appeared to have an elevated risk of adverse events.ConclusionAdministration of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and their combination appeared to have no effect on time to mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Continued research is needed to clarify best practices surrounding treatment of COVID-19.