Improvement in Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease Risk over Conventional Risk Factors Using SNPs Identified in Genome-Wide Association Studies

We examined whether a panel of SNPs, systematically selected from genome-wide association studies (GWAS), could improve risk prediction of coronary heart disease (CHD), over-and-above conventional risk factors. These SNPs have already demonstrated reproducible associations with CHD; here we examined their use in long-term risk prediction.SNPs identified from meta-analyses of GWAS of CHD were tested in 840 men and women aged 55-75 from the Edinburgh Artery Study, a prospective, population-based study with 15 years of follow-up. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the addition of SNPs to conventional risk factors in prediction of CHD risk. CHD was classified as myocardial infarction (MI), coronary intervention (angioplasty, or coronary artery bypass surgery), angina and/or unspecified ischaemic heart disease as a cause of death; additional analyses were limited to MI or coronary intervention. Model performance was assessed by changes in discrimination and net reclassification improvement (NRI).There were significant improvements with addition of 27 SNPs to conventional risk factors for prediction of CHD (NRI of 54%, P<0.001; C-index 0.671 to 0.740, P = 0.001), as well as MI or coronary intervention, (NRI of 44%, P<0.001; C-index 0.717 to 0.750, P = 0.256). ROC curves showed that addition of SNPs better improved discrimination when the sensitivity of conventional risk factors was low for prediction of MI or coronary intervention.There was significant improvement in risk prediction of CHD over 15 years when SNPs identified from GWAS were added to conventional risk factors. This effect may be particularly useful for identifying individuals with a low prognostic index who are in fact at increased risk of disease than indicated by conventional risk factors alone

HMG-coenzyme A reductase inhibition, type 2 diabetes, and bodyweight: evidence from genetic analysis and randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Statins increase the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus. We aimed to assess whether this increase in risk is a consequence of inhibition of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGCR), the intended drug target. METHODS: We used single nucleotide polymorphisms in the HMGCR gene, rs17238484 (for the main analysis) and rs12916 (for a subsidiary analysis) as proxies for HMGCR inhibition by statins. We examined associations of these variants with plasma lipid, glucose, and insulin concentrations; bodyweight; waist circumference; and prevalent and incident type 2 diabetes. Study-specific effect estimates per copy of each LDL-lowering allele were pooled by meta-analysis. These findings were compared with a meta-analysis of new-onset type 2 diabetes and bodyweight change data from randomised trials of statin drugs. The effects of statins in each randomised trial were assessed using meta-analysis. FINDINGS: Data were available for up to 223 463 individuals from 43 genetic studies. Each additional rs17238484-G allele was associated with a mean 0·06 mmol/L (95% CI 0·05-0·07) lower LDL cholesterol and higher body weight (0·30 kg, 0·18-0·43), waist circumference (0·32 cm, 0·16-0·47), plasma insulin concentration (1·62%, 0·53-2·72), and plasma glucose concentration (0·23%, 0·02-0·44). The rs12916 SNP had similar effects on LDL cholesterol, bodyweight, and waist circumference. The rs17238484-G allele seemed to be associated with higher risk of type 2 diabetes (odds ratio [OR] per allele 1·02, 95% CI 1·00-1·05); the rs12916-T allele association was consistent (1·06, 1·03-1·09). In 129 170 individuals in randomised trials, statins lowered LDL cholesterol by 0·92 mmol/L (95% CI 0·18-1·67) at 1-year of follow-up, increased bodyweight by 0·24 kg (95% CI 0·10-0·38 in all trials; 0·33 kg, 95% CI 0·24-0·42 in placebo or standard care controlled trials and -0·15 kg, 95% CI -0·39 to 0·08 in intensive-dose vs moderate-dose trials) at a mean of 4·2 years (range 1·9-6·7) of follow-up, and increased the odds of new-onset type 2 diabetes (OR 1·12, 95% CI 1·06-1·18 in all trials; 1·11, 95% CI 1·03-1·20 in placebo or standard care controlled trials and 1·12, 95% CI 1·04-1·22 in intensive-dose vs moderate dose trials). INTERPRETATION: The increased risk of type 2 diabetes noted with statins is at least partially explained by HMGCR inhibition. FUNDING: The funding sources are cited at the end of the paper

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Comparison of baseline characteristics of the EAS population used in genetic risk prediction models and full study population.

<p>Comparison of baseline characteristics of the EAS population used in genetic risk prediction models and full study population.</p

SNPs identified from meta-analysis of GWAS of CHD used in risk prediction models.

<p>SNPs identified from meta-analysis of GWAS of CHD used in risk prediction models.</p

Incidence, Discrimination, and Calibration Estimates of Models Using Conventional Risk Factors^* and GWAS or Regression Tree SNPs in the EAS.

*<p>Conventional risk factors = Age, Sex, SBP, Total Cholesterol/HDL Cholesterol, Diabetes and/or glucose intolerance, Smoking.</p><p>Each analysis used only subjects without a diagnosis at baseline, as appropriate to investigate incident events, and with full genotypic data for included SNPs.</p