Search

Importance: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have proven to be as strong as or stronger than established clinical risk factors for many cardiovascular phenotypes. Whether this is true for aortic stenosis remains unknown., Objective: To develop a novel aortic stenosis PRS and compare its aortic stenosis risk estimation to established clinical risk factors., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from the Million Veteran Program (MVP; 2011-2020), UK Biobank (2006-2010), and 6 Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trials, including DECLARE-TIMI 58 (2013-2018), FOURIER (TIMI 59; 2013-2017), PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (2010-2014), SAVOR-TIMI 53 (2010-2013), SOLID-TIMI 52 (2009-2014), and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (2008-2013), which were a mix of population-based and randomized clinical trials. Individuals from UK Biobank and the MVP meeting a previously validated case/control definition for aortic stenosis were included. All individuals from TIMI trials were included unless they had a documented preexisting aortic valve replacement. Analysis took place from January 2022 to December 2023., Exposures: PRS for aortic stenosis (developed using data from MVP and validated in UK Biobank) and other previously validated cardiovascular PRSs, defined either as a continuous variable or as low (bottom 20%), intermediate, and high (top 20%), and clinical risk factors., Main Outcomes: Aortic stenosis (defined using International Classification of Diseases or Current Procedural Terminology codes in UK Biobank and MVP or safety event data in the TIMI trials)., Results: The median (IQR) age in MVP was 67 (57-73) years, and 135 140 of 147 104 participants (92%) were male. The median (IQR) age in the TIMI trials was 66 (54-78) years, and 45 524 of 59 866 participants (71%) were male. The best aortic stenosis PRS incorporated 5 170 041 single-nucleotide variants and was associated with aortic stenosis in both the MVP testing sample (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.37-1.45 per 1 SD PRS; P = 4.6 × 10-116) and TIMI trials (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.27-1.62 per 1 SD PRS; P = 3.2 × 10-9). Among genetic and clinical risk factors, the aortic stenosis PRS performed comparably to most risk factors besides age, and within a given age range, the combination of clinical and genetic risk factors was additive, providing a 3- to 4-fold increased gradient of risk of aortic stenosis. However, the addition of the aortic stenosis PRS to a model including clinical risk factors only improved risk discrimination of aortic stenosis by 0.01 to 0.02 (C index in MVP: 0.78 with clinical risk factors, 0.79 with risk factors and aortic stenosis PRS; C index in TIMI: 0.71 with clinical risk factors, 0.73 with risk factors and aortic stenosis PRS)., Conclusions: This study developed and validated 1 of the first aortic stenosis PRSs. While aortic stenosis genetic risk was independent from clinical risk factors and performed comparably to all other risk factors besides age, genetic risk resulted in only a small improvement in overall aortic stenosis risk discrimination beyond age and clinical risk factors. This work sets the stage for further development of an aortic stenosis PRS.

Importance: The clinical utility of polygenic risk scores (PRS) for coronary artery disease (CAD) has not yet been established., Objective: To investigate the ability of a CAD PRS to potentially guide statin initiation in primary prevention after accounting for age and clinical risk., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a longitudinal cohort study with enrollment starting on January 1, 2006, and ending on December 31, 2010, with data updated to mid-2021, using data from the UK Biobank, a long-term population study of UK citizens. A replication analysis was performed in Biobank Japan. The analysis included all patients without a history of CAD and who were not taking lipid-lowering therapy. Data were analyzed from January 1 to June 30, 2022., Exposures: Polygenic risk for CAD was defined as low (bottom 20%), intermediate, and high (top 20%) using a CAD PRS including 241 genome-wide significant single-nucleotide variations (SNVs). The pooled cohort equations were used to estimate 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk and classify individuals as low (<5%), borderline (5-<7.5%), intermediate (7.5-<20%), or high risk (≥20%)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Myocardial infarction (MI) and ASCVD events (defined as incident clinical CAD [including MI], stroke, or CV death)., Results: A total of 330 201 patients (median [IQR] age, 57 [40-74] years; 189 107 female individuals [57%]) were included from the UK Biobank. Over the 10-year follow-up, 4454 individuals had an MI. The CAD PRS was significantly associated with the risk of MI in all age groups but had significantly stronger risk prediction at younger ages (age <50 years: hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD of PRS, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.56-1.89; age 50-60 years: HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.38-1.53; age >60 years: HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.37-1.48; P for interaction <.001). In patients younger than 50 years, those with high PRS had a 3- to 4-fold increased associated risk of MI compared with those in the low PRS category. A significant interaction between CAD PRS and age was replicated in Biobank Japan. When CAD PRS testing was added to the clinical ASCVD risk score in individuals younger than 50 years, 591 of 4373 patients (20%) with borderline risk were risk stratified into intermediate risk, warranting initiation of statin therapy and 3198 of 7477 patients (20%) with both borderline or intermediate risk were stratified as low risk, thus not warranting therapy., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that the predictive ability of a CAD PRS was greater in younger individuals and can be used to better identify patients with borderline and intermediate clinical risk who should initiate statin therapy.

Importance: Lipid management typically focuses on levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and, to a lesser extent, triglycerides (TG). However, animal models and genetic studies suggest that the atherogenic particle subpopulations (LDL and very-low-density lipoprotein [VLDL]) are both important and that the number of particles is more predictive of cardiac events than their lipid content., Objective: To determine whether common measures of cholesterol concentration, TG concentration, or their ratio are associated with cardiovascular risk beyond the number of apolipoprotein B (apoB)-containing lipoproteins., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort analysis included individuals from the population-based UK Biobank and from 2 large international clinical trials, FOURIER and IMPROVE-IT. The median (IQR) follow-up was 11.1 (10.4-11.8) years in UK Biobank and 2.5 (2.0-4.7) years in the clinical trials. Two populations were studied in this analysis: 389 529 individuals in the primary prevention group who were not taking lipid-lowering therapy and 40 430 patients with established atherosclerosis who were receiving statin treatment., Exposures: ApoB, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), LDL-C, and TG., Main Outcome and Measures: The primary study outcome was incident myocardial infarction (MI)., Results: Of the 389 529 individuals in the primary prevention group, 224 097 (58%) were female, and the median (IQR) age was 56.0 (49.5-62.5) years. Of the 40 430 patients with established atherosclerosis, 9647 (24%) were female, and the median (IQR) age was 63 (56.2-69.0) years. In the primary prevention cohort, apoB, non-HDL-C, and TG each individually were associated with incident MI. However, when assessed together, only apoB was associated (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] per 1 SD, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.40; P < .001). Similarly, only apoB was associated with MI in the secondary prevention cohort. Adjusting for apoB, there was no association between the ratio of TG to LDL-C (a surrogate for the ratio of TG-rich lipoproteins to LDL) and risk of MI, implying that for a given concentration of apoB-containing lipoproteins, the relative proportions of particle subpopulations may no longer be a predictor of risk., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, risk of MI was best captured by the number of apoB-containing lipoproteins, independent from lipid content (cholesterol or TG) or type of lipoprotein (LDL or TG-rich). This suggests that apoB may be the primary driver of atherosclerosis and that lowering the concentration of all apoB-containing lipoproteins should be the focus of therapeutic strategies.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular trials often use a composite end point and a time-to-first event model. We sought to compare edoxaban versus warfarin using the win ratio, which offers data complementary to time-to-first event analysis, emphasizing the most severe clinical events. METHODS: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) was a double-blind, randomized trial in which patients with atrial fibrillation were assigned 1:1:1 to a higher dose edoxaban regimen (60/30 mg daily), a lower dose edoxaban regimen (30/15 mg daily), or warfarin. In an exploratory analysis, we analyzed the trial outcomes using an unmatched win ratio approach. The win ratio for each edoxaban regimen was the total number of edoxaban wins divided by the number of warfarin wins for the following ranked clinical outcomes: 1: death; 2: hemorrhagic stroke; 3: ischemic stroke/systemic embolic event/epidural or subdural bleeding; 4: noncerebral International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding; and 5: cardiovascular hospitalization. RESULTS: 21 105 patients were randomized to higher dose edoxaban regimen (N=7035), lower dose edoxaban regimen (N=7034), or warfarin (N=7046), yielding >49 million pairs for each treatment comparison. The median age was 72 years, 38% were women, and 59% had prior vitamin K antagonist use. The win ratio was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.05-1.18) for higher dose edoxaban regimen versus warfarin and 1.11 (95% CI, 1.05-1.18) for lower dose edoxaban regimen versus warfarin. The favorable impacts of edoxaban on death (34% of wins) and cardiovascular hospitalization (41% of wins) were the major contributors to the win ratio. Results consistently favored edoxaban in subgroups based on creatine clearance and dose reduction at baseline, with heightened benefit among those without prior vitamin K antagonist use. CONCLUSIONS: In a win ratio analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, both dose regimens of edoxaban were superior to warfarin for the net clinical outcome incorporating ischemic and bleeding events. As the win ratio emphasizes the most severe clinical events, this analysis supports the superiority of edoxaban over warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]