Investigation of Genetic Variation Underlying Central Obesity amongst South Asians

The LOLIPOP study is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, the British Heart Foundation (SP/04/002), the Medical Research Council (G0601966,G0700931), the Wellcome Trust (084723/Z/08/Z), and the NIHR (RP-PG-0407-10371). The work was carried out in part at the NIHR/Wellcome Trust Imperial Clinical Research Facility. The Sikh Diabetes Study is supported by National Institute of Health grants KO1TW006087, funded by the Fogarty International Center, R01DK082766, funded by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and a seed grant from University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, USA. The Mauritius Family Study is supported by the Mauritius Ministry of Health and Quality of Life, Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council NHMRC project grant numbers 1020285 and 1037916, the Victorian Government’s OIS Program, and partly funded by US National Institutes of Health Grant DK-25446. We thank the participants and research staff who made the study possible.South Asians are 1/4 of the world’s population and have increased susceptibility to central obesity and related cardiometabolic disease. Knowledge of genetic variants affecting risk of central obesity is largely based on genome-wide association studies of common SNPs in Europeans. To evaluate the contribution of DNA sequence variation to the higher levels of central obesity (defined as waist hip ratio adjusted for body mass index, WHR) among South Asians compared to Europeans we carried out: i) a genome-wide association analysis of >6M genetic variants in 10,318 South Asians with focused analysis of population-specific SNPs; ii) an exome-wide association analysis of ~250K SNPs in protein-coding regions in 2,637 South Asians; iii) a comparison of risk allele frequencies and effect sizes of 48 known WHR SNPs in 12,240 South Asians compared to Europeans. In genome-wide analyses, we found no novel associations between common genetic variants and WHR in South Asians at P<5x10-8; variants showing equivocal association with WHR (P<1x10-5) did not replicate at P<0.05 in an independent cohort of South Asians (N = 1,922) or in published, predominantly European meta-analysis data. In the targeted analyses of 122,391 population-specific SNPs we also found no associations with WHR in South Asians at P<0.05 after multiple testing correction. Exome-wide analyses showed no new associations between genetic variants and WHR in South Asians, either individually at P<1.5x10-6 or grouped by gene locus at P<2.5x10−6. At known WHR loci, risk allele frequencies were not higher in South Asians compared to Europeans (P = 0.77), while effect sizes were unexpectedly smaller in South Asians than Europeans (P<5.0x10-8). Our findings argue against an important contribution for population-specific or cosmopolitan genetic variants underlying the increased risk of central obesity in South Asians compared to Europeans.Yeshttp://www.plosone.org/static/editorial#pee

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used