Associations of Polymorphisms in the Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor Gamma Coactivator-1 Alpha Gene With Subsequent Coronary Heart Disease: An Individual-Level Meta-Analysis

Background: The knowledge of factors influencing disease progression in patients with established coronary heart disease (CHD) is still relatively limited. One potential pathway is related to peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor gamma coactivator-1 alpha (PPARGC1A), a transcription factor linked to energy metabolism which may play a role in the heart function. Thus, its associations with subsequent CHD events remain unclear. We aimed to investigate the effect of three different SNPs in the PPARGC1A gene on the risk of subsequent CHD in a population with established CHD. Methods: We employed an individual-level meta-analysis using 23 studies from the GENetIcs of sUbSequent Coronary Heart Disease (GENIUS-CHD) consortium, which included participants (n = 80,900) with either acute coronary syndrome, stable CHD, or a mixture of both at baseline. Three variants in the PPARGC1A gene (rs8192678, G482S; rs7672915, intron 2; and rs3755863, T528T) were tested for their associations with subsequent events during the follow-up using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age and sex. The primary outcome was subsequent CHD death or myocardial infarction (CHD death/myocardial infarction). Stratified analyses of the participant or study characteristics as well as additional analyses for secondary outcomes of specific cardiovascular disease diagnoses and all-cause death were also performed. Results: Meta-analysis revealed no significant association between any of the three variants in the PPARGC1A gene and the primary outcome of CHD death/myocardial infarction among those with established CHD at baseline: rs8192678, hazard ratio (HR): 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98–1.05 and rs7672915, HR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.94–1.00; rs3755863, HR: 1.02, 95% CI 0.99–1.06. Similarly, no significant associations were observed for any of the secondary outcomes. The results from stratified analyses showed null results, except for significant inverse associations between rs7672915 (intron 2) and the primary outcome among 1) individuals aged ≥65, 2) individuals with renal impairment, and 3) antiplatelet users. Conclusion: We found no clear associations between polymorphisms in the PPARGC1A gene and subsequent CHD events in patients with established CHD at baseline

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

Association of Chromosome 9p21 with Subsequent Coronary Heart Disease events:A GENIUS-CHD study of individual participant data

BACKGROUND:Genetic variation at chromosome 9p21 is a recognized risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). However, its effect on disease progression and subsequent events is unclear, raising questions about its value for stratification of residual risk. METHODS:A variant at chromosome 9p21 (rs1333049) was tested for association with subsequent events during follow-up in 103,357 Europeans with established CHD at baseline from the GENIUS-CHD Consortium (73.1% male, mean age 62.9 years). The primary outcome, subsequent CHD death or myocardial infarction (CHD death/MI), occurred in 13,040 of the 93,115 participants with available outcome data. Effect estimates were compared to case/control risk obtained from CARDIoGRAMPlusC4D including 47,222 CHD cases and 122,264 controls free of CHD. RESULTS:Meta-analyses revealed no significant association between chromosome 9p21 and the primary outcome of CHD death/MI among those with established CHD at baseline (GENIUS-CHD OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.99-1.05). This contrasted with a strong association in CARDIoGRAMPlusC4D OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.18-1.22; p for interaction Conclusions: In contrast to studies comparing individuals with CHD to disease free controls, we found no clear association between genetic variation at chromosome 9p21 and risk of subsequent acute CHD events when all individuals had CHD at baseline. However, the association with subsequent revascularization may support the postulated mechanism of chromosome 9p21 for promoting atheroma development

How did the public respond to the 2015 expert consensus public health guidance statement on workplace sedentary behaviour? A qualitative analysis

Background: In June 2015, an expert consensus guidance statement was published recommending that office workers accumulate 2–4 h of standing and light activity daily and take regular breaks from prolonged sitting. This paper describes public responses to media coverage of the guidance, so as to understand public acceptability of the recommendations within the guidance, and perceptions of sitting and standing as health behaviours. Methods: UK news media websites that had reported on the sedentary workplace guidance statement, and permitted viewers to post comments responding to the story, were identified. 493 public comments, posted in a one-month period to one of six eligible news media websites, were thematically analysed. Results: Three themes were extracted: (1) challenges to the credibility of the sedentary workplace guidance; (2) challenges to the credibility of public health; and (3) the guidance as a spur to knowledge exchange. Challenges were made to the novelty of the guidance, the credibility of its authors, the strength of its evidence base, and its applicability to UK workplaces. Public health was commonly mistrusted and viewed as a tool for controlling the public, to serve a paternalistic agenda set by a conspiracy of stakeholders with hidden non-health interests. Knowledge exchanges focused on correcting others’ misinterpretations, raising awareness of historical or scientific context, debating current workplace health policies, and sharing experiences around sitting and standing. Conclusions: The guidance provoked exchanges of health-promoting ideas among some, thus demonstrating the potential for sitting reduction messages to be translated into everyday contexts by lay champions. However, findings also demonstrated confusion, misunderstanding and misapprehension among some respondents about the health value of sitting and standing. Predominantly unfavourable, mistrusting responses reveal significant hostility towards efforts to displace workplace sitting with standing, and towards public health science more broadly. Concerns about the credibility and purpose of public health testify to the importance of public engagement in public health guidance development

Subsequent event risk in individuals with established coronary heart disease

Background The Genetics of Subsequent Coronary Heart Disease (GENIUS-CHD) consortium was established to facilitate discovery and validation of genetic variants and biomarkers for risk of subsequent CHD events, in individuals with established CHD. Methods The consortium currently includes 57 studies from 18 countries, recruiting 185 614 participants with either acute coronary syndrome, stable CHD, or a mixture of both at baseline. All studies collected biological samples and followed-up study participants prospectively for subsequent events. Results Enrollment into the individual studies took place between 1985 to present day with a duration of follow-up ranging from 9 months to 15 years. Within each study, participants with CHD are predominantly of self-reported European descent (38%–100%), mostly male (44%–91%) with mean ages at recruitment ranging from 40 to 75 years. Initial feasibility analyses, using a federated analysis approach, yielded expected associations between age (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.14–1.16) per 5-year increase, male sex (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13–1.21) and smoking (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35–1.51) with risk of subsequent CHD death or myocardial infarction and differing associations with other individual and composite cardiovascular endpoints. Conclusions GENIUS-CHD is a global collaboration seeking to elucidate genetic and nongenetic determinants of subsequent event risk in individuals with established CHD, to improve residual risk prediction and identify novel drug targets for secondary prevention. Initial analyses demonstrate the feasibility and reliability of a federated analysis approach. The consortium now plans to initiate and test novel hypotheses as well as supporting replication and validation analyses for other investigators.</p