Relations between lipoprotein(a) concentrations, LPA genetic variants, and the risk of mortality in patients with established coronary heart disease: a molecular and genetic association study

Peer reviewe

Impact of Selection Bias on Estimation of Subsequent Event Risk

BACKGROUND: Studies of recurrent or subsequent disease events may be susceptible to bias caused by selection of subjects who both experience and survive the primary indexing event. Currently, the magnitude of any selection bias, particularly for subsequent time-to-event analysis in genetic association studies, is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used empirically inspired simulation studies to explore the impact of selection bias on the marginal hazard ratio for risk of subsequent events among those with established coronary heart disease. The extent of selection bias was determined by the magnitudes of genetic and nongenetic effects on the indexing (first) coronary heart disease event. Unless the genetic hazard ratio was unrealistically large (>1.6 per allele) and assuming the sum of all nongenetic hazard ratios was <10, bias was usually <10% (downward toward the null). Despite the low bias, the probability that a confidence interval included the true effect decreased (undercoverage) with increasing sample size because of increasing precision. Importantly, false-positive rates were not affected by selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: In most empirical settings, selection bias is expected to have a limited impact on genetic effect estimates of subsequent event risk. Nevertheless, because of undercoverage increasing with sample size, most confidence intervals will be over precise (not wide enough). When there is no effect modification by history of coronary heart disease, the false-positive rates of association tests will be close to nominal

Genome-wide analysis identifies novel susceptibility loci for myocardial infarction

AIMS: While most patients with myocardial infarction (MI) have underlying coronary atherosclerosis, not all patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) develop MI. We sought to address the hypothesis that some of the genetic factors which establish atherosclerosis may be distinct from those that predispose to vulnerable plaques and thrombus formation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We carried out a genome-wide association study for MI in the UK Biobank (n∼472 000), followed by a meta-analysis with summary statistics from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium (n∼167 000). Multiple independent replication analyses and functional approaches were used to prioritize loci and evaluate positional candidate genes. Eight novel regions were identified for MI at the genome wide significance level, of which effect sizes at six loci were more robust for MI than for CAD without the presence of MI. Confirmatory evidence for association of a locus on chromosome 1p21.3 harbouring choline-like transporter 3 (SLC44A3) with MI in the context of CAD, but not with coronary atherosclerosis itself, was obtained in Biobank Japan (n∼165 000) and 16 independent angiography-based cohorts (n∼27 000). Follow-up analyses did not reveal association of the SLC44A3 locus with CAD risk factors, biomarkers of coagulation, other thrombotic diseases, or plasma levels of a broad array of metabolites, including choline, trimethylamine N-oxide, and betaine. However, aortic expression of SLC44A3 was increased in carriers of the MI risk allele at chromosome 1p21.3, increased in ischaemic (vs. non-diseased) coronary arteries, up-regulated in human aortic endothelial cells treated with interleukin-1β (vs. vehicle), and associated with smooth muscle cell migration in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: A large-scale analysis comprising ∼831 000 subjects revealed novel genetic determinants of MI and implicated SLC44A3 in the pathophysiology of vulnerable plaques

Relations between lipoprotein(a) concentrations, LPA genetic variants, and the risk of mortality in patients with established coronary heart disease: a molecular and genetic association study

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) concentrations in plasma are associated with cardiovascular risk in the general population. Whether lipoprotein(a) concentrations or LPA genetic variants predict long-term mortality in patients with established coronary heart disease remains less clear. METHODS: We obtained data from 3313 patients with established coronary heart disease in the Ludwigshafen Risk and Cardiovascular Health (LURIC) study. We tested associations of tertiles of lipoprotein(a) concentration in plasma and two LPA single-nucleotide polymorphisms ([SNPs] rs10455872 and rs3798220) with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality by Cox regression analysis and with severity of disease by generalised linear modelling, with and without adjustment for age, sex, diabetes diagnosis, systolic blood pressure, BMI, smoking status, estimated glomerular filtration rate, LDL-cholesterol concentration, and use of lipid-lowering therapy. Results for plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations were validated in five independent studies involving 10 195 patients with established coronary heart disease. Results for genetic associations were replicated through large-scale collaborative analysis in the GENIUS-CHD consortium, comprising 106 353 patients with established coronary heart disease and 19 332 deaths in 22 studies or cohorts. FINDINGS: The median follow-up was 9·9 years. Increased severity of coronary heart disease was associated with lipoprotein(a) concentrations in plasma in the highest tertile (adjusted hazard radio [HR] 1·44, 95% CI 1·14-1·83) and the presence of either LPA SNP (1·88, 1·40-2·53). No associations were found in LURIC with all-cause mortality (highest tertile of lipoprotein(a) concentration in plasma 0·95, 0·81-1·11 and either LPA SNP 1·10, 0·92-1·31) or cardiovascular mortality (0·99, 0·81-1·2 and 1·13, 0·90-1·40, respectively) or in the validation studies. INTERPRETATION: In patients with prevalent coronary heart disease, lipoprotein(a) concentrations and genetic variants showed no associations with mortality. We conclude that these variables are not useful risk factors to measure to predict progression to death after coronary heart disease is established. FUNDING: Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development (AtheroRemo and RiskyCAD), INTERREG IV Oberrhein Programme, Deutsche Nierenstiftung, Else-Kroener Fresenius Foundation, Deutsche Stiftung für Herzforschung, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Saarland University, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Willy Robert Pitzer Foundation, and Waldburg-Zeil Clinics Isny

Impact of selection bias on estimation of subsequent event risk

Background: Studies of recurrent or subsequent disease events may be susceptible to bias caused by selection of subjects who both experience and survive the primary indexing event. Currently, the magnitude of any selection bias, particularly for subsequent time-to-event analysis in genetic association studies, is unknown.Methods and results: We used empirically inspired simulation studies to explore the impact of selection bias on the marginal hazard ratio for risk of subsequent events among those with established coronary heart disease. The extent of selection bias was determined by the magnitudes of genetic and nongenetic effects on the indexing (first) coronary heart disease event. Unless the genetic hazard ratio was unrealistically large (\u3e1.6 per allele) and assuming the sum of all nongenetic hazard ratios was Conclusions: In most empirical settings, selection bias is expected to have a limited impact on genetic effect estimates of subsequent event risk. Nevertheless, because of undercoverage increasing with sample size, most confidence intervals will be over precise (not wide enough). When there is no effect modification by history of coronary heart disease, the false-positive rates of association tests will be close to nominal

Impact of selection bias on estimation of subsequent event risk

BACKGROUND:Studies of recurrent or subsequent disease events may be susceptible to bias caused by selection of subjects who both experience and survive the primary indexing event. Currently, the magnitude of any selection bias, particularly for subsequent time-to-event analysis in genetic association studies, is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS:We used empirically inspired simulation studies to explore the impact of selection bias on the marginal hazard ratio for risk of subsequent events among those with established coronary heart disease. The extent of selection bias was determined by the magnitudes of genetic and nongenetic effects on the indexing (first) coronary heart disease event. Unless the genetic hazard ratio was unrealistically large (&gt;1.6 per allele) and assuming the sum of all nongenetic hazard ratios was &lt;10, bias was usually &lt;10% (downward toward the null). Despite the low bias, the probability that a confidence interval included the true effect decreased (undercoverage) with increasing sample size because of increasing precision. Importantly, false-positive rates were not affected by selection bias. CONCLUSIONS:In most empirical settings, selection bias is expected to have a limited impact on genetic effect estimates of subsequent event risk. Nevertheless, because of undercoverage increasing with sample size, most confidence intervals will be over precise (not wide enough). When there is no effect modification by history of coronary heart disease, the false-positive rates of association tests will be close to nominal

Relations between lipoprotein(a) concentrations, LPA genetic variants, and the risk of mortality in patients with established coronary heart disease : a molecular and genetic association study

Background Lipoprotein(a) concentrations in plasma are associated with cardiovascular risk in the general population. Whether lipoprotein(a) concentrations or LPA genetic variants predict long-term mortality in patients with established coronary heart disease remains less clear. Methods We obtained data from 3313 patients with established coronary heart disease in the Ludwigshafen Risk and Cardiovascular Health (LURIC) study. We tested associations of tertiles of lipoprotein(a) concentration in plasma and two LPA single-nucleotide polymorphisms ([SNPs] rs10455872 and rs3798220) with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality by Cox regression analysis and with severity of disease by generalised linear modelling, with and without adjustment for age, sex, diabetes diagnosis, systolic blood pressure, BMI, smoking status, estimated glomerular filtration rate, LDL-cholesterol concentration, and use of lipid-lowering therapy. Results for plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations were validated in five independent studies involving 10 195 patients with established coronary heart disease. Results for genetic associations were replicated through large-scale collaborative analysis in the GENIUS-CHD consortium, comprising 106 353 patients with established coronary heart disease and 19 332 deaths in 22 studies or cohorts. Findings The median follow-up was 9·9 years. Increased severity of coronary heart disease was associated with lipoprotein(a) concentrations in plasma in the highest tertile (adjusted hazard radio [HR] 1·44, 95% CI 1·14–1·83) and the presence of either LPA SNP (1·88, 1·40–2·53). No associations were found in LURIC with all-cause mortality (highest tertile of lipoprotein(a) concentration in plasma 0·95, 0·81–1·11 and either LPA SNP 1·10, 0·92–1·31) or cardiovascular mortality (0·99, 0·81–1·2 and 1·13, 0·90–1·40, respectively) or in the validation studies. Interpretation In patients with prevalent coronary heart disease, lipoprotein(a) concentrations and genetic variants showed no associations with mortality. We conclude that these variables are not useful risk factors to measure to predict progression to death after coronary heart disease is established. Funding Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development (AtheroRemo and RiskyCAD), INTERREG IV Oberrhein Programme, Deutsche Nierenstiftung, Else-Kroener Fresenius Foundation, Deutsche Stiftung für Herzforschung, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Saarland University, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Willy Robert Pitzer Foundation, and Waldburg-Zeil Clinics Isny

Impact of Selection Bias on Estimation of Subsequent Event Risk

Background - Studies of recurrent or subsequent disease events may be susceptible to bias caused by selection of subjects who both experience and survive the primary indexing event. Currently, the magnitude of any selection bias, particularly for subsequent time-to-event analysis in genetic association studies, is unknown. Methods and Results - We used empirically inspired simulation studies to explore the impact of selection bias on the marginal hazard ratio for risk of subsequent events among those with established coronary heart disease. The extent of selection bias was determined by the magnitudes of genetic and nongenetic effects on the indexing (first) coronary heart disease event. Unless the genetic hazard ratio was unrealistically large (>1.6 per allele) and assuming the sum of all nongenetic hazard ratios was <10, bias was usually <10% (downward toward the null). Despite the low bias, the probability that a confidence interval included the true effect decreased (undercoverage) with increasing sample size because of increasing precision. Importantly, false-positive rates were not affected by selection bias. Conclusions - In most empirical settings, selection bias is expected to have a limited impact on genetic effect estimates of subsequent event risk. Nevertheless, because of undercoverage increasing with sample size, most confidence intervals will be over precise (not wide enough). When there is no effect modification by history of coronary heart disease, the false-positive rates of association tests will be close to nominal

Impact of Selection Bias on Estimation of Subsequent Event Risk

Background - Studies of recurrent or subsequent disease events may be susceptible to bias caused by selection of subjects who both experience and survive the primary indexing event. Currently, the magnitude of any selection bias, particularly for subsequent time-to-event analysis in genetic association studies, is unknown. Methods and Results - We used empirically inspired simulation studies to explore the impact of selection bias on the marginal hazard ratio for risk of subsequent events among those with established coronary heart disease. The extent of selection bias was determined by the magnitudes of genetic and nongenetic effects on the indexing (first) coronary heart disease event. Unless the genetic hazard ratio was unrealistically large (>1.6 per allele) and assuming the sum of all nongenetic hazard ratios was <10, bias was usually <10% (downward toward the null). Despite the low bias, the probability that a confidence interval included the true effect decreased (undercoverage) with increasing sample size because of increasing precision. Importantly, false-positive rates were not affected by selection bias. Conclusions - In most empirical settings, selection bias is expected to have a limited impact on genetic effect estimates of subsequent event risk. Nevertheless, because of undercoverage increasing with sample size, most confidence intervals will be over precise (not wide enough). When there is no effect modification by history of coronary heart disease, the false-positive rates of association tests will be close to nominal