Stroke genetics informs drug discovery and risk prediction across ancestries

Previous genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of stroke — the second leading cause of death worldwide — were conducted predominantly in populations of European ancestry1,2. Here, in cross-ancestry GWAS meta-analyses of 110,182 patients who have had a stroke (five ancestries, 33% non-European) and 1,503,898 control individuals, we identify association signals for stroke and its subtypes at 89 (61 new) independent loci: 60 in primary inverse-variance-weighted analyses and 29 in secondary meta-regression and multitrait analyses. On the basis of internal cross-ancestry validation and an independent follow-up in 89,084 additional cases of stroke (30% non-European) and 1,013,843 control individuals, 87% of the primary stroke risk loci and 60% of the secondary stroke risk loci were replicated (P < 0.05). Effect sizes were highly correlated across ancestries. Cross-ancestry fine-mapping, in silico mutagenesis analysis3, and transcriptome-wide and proteome-wide association analyses revealed putative causal genes (such as SH3PXD2A and FURIN) and variants (such as at GRK5 and NOS3). Using a three-pronged approach4, we provide genetic evidence for putative drug effects, highlighting F11, KLKB1, PROC, GP1BA, LAMC2 and VCAM1 as possible targets, with drugs already under investigation for stroke for F11 and PROC. A polygenic score integrating cross-ancestry and ancestry-specific stroke GWASs with vascular-risk factor GWASs (integrative polygenic scores) strongly predicted ischaemic stroke in populations of European, East Asian and African ancestry5. Stroke genetic risk scores were predictive of ischaemic stroke independent of clinical risk factors in 52,600 clinical-trial participants with cardiometabolic disease. Our results provide insights to inform biology, reveal potential drug targets and derive genetic risk prediction tools across ancestries

Venous hemodynamic changes in lower limb venous disease: the UIP consensus according to scientific evidence

There are excellent guidelines for clinicians to manage venous diseases but few reviews to assess their hemodynamic background. Hemodynamic concepts that evolved in the past have largely remained unchallenged in recent decades, perhaps due to their often complicated nature and in part due to emergence of new diagnostic techniques. Duplex ultrasound scanning and other imaging techniques which evolved in the latter part of the 20th century have dominated investigation. They have greatly improved our understanding of the anatomical patterns of venous reflux and obstruction. However, they do not provide the physiological basis for understanding the hemodynamics of flow, pressure, compliance and resistance. Hemodynamic investigations appear to provide a better correlation with post-treatment clinical outcome and quality of life than ultrasound findings. There is a far better prospect for understanding the complete picture of the patient's disability and response to management by combining ultrasound with hemodynamic studies. Accordingly, at the instigation of Dr Angelo Scuderi, the Union Internationale de Phlebologie (UIP) executive board commissioned a large number of experts to assess all aspects of management for venous disease by evidence-based principles. These included experts from various member societies including the European Venous Forum (EVF), American Venous Forum (AVF), American College of Phlebology (ACP) and Cardiovascular Disease Educational and Research Trust (CDERT). Their aim was to confirm or dispel long-held hemodynamic principles and to provide a comprehensive review of venous hemodynamic concepts underlying the pathophysiology of lower limb venous disorders, their usefulness for investigating patients and the relevant hemodynamic changes associated with various forms of treatment. Chapter 1 is devoted to basic hemodynamic concepts and normal venous physiology. Chapter 2 presents the mechanism and magnitude of hemodynamic changes in acute deep vein thrombosis indicating their pathophysiological and clinical significance. Chapter 3 describes the hemodynamic changes that occur in different classes of chronic venous disease and their relation to the anatomic extent of disease in the macrocirculation and microcirculation. The next four chapters (Chapters 4-7) describe the hemodynamic changes resulting from treatmen by compression using different materials, intermittent compression devices, pharmacological agents and finally surgical or endovenous ablation. Chapter 8 discusses the unique hemodynamic features associated with alternative treatment techniques used by the CHIVA and ASVAL. Chapter 9 describes the hemodynamic effects following treatment to relieve pelvic reflux and obstruction. Finally, Chapter 10 demonstrates that contrary to general belief there is a moderate to good correlation between certain hemodynamic measurements and clinical severity of chronic venous disease. The authors believe that this document will be a timely asset to both clinicians and researchers alike. It is directed towards surgeons and physicians who are anxious to incorporate the conclusions of research into their daily practice. It is also directed to postgraduate trainees, vascular technologists and bioengineers, particularly to help them understand the hemodynamic background to pathophysiology, investigations and treatment of patients with venous disorders. Hopefully it will be a platform for those who would like to embark on new research in the field of venous disease