Abstract
Background Recommended CVD prediction models do not perform well in people with diabetes. We aimed to determine whether models combining polygenic scores (PGS) with clinical risk factors could more accurately predict 10-year risk of six facets of CVD, including: coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), and atrial fibrillation (AF).
Methods Three groups were selected from the UK Biobank: 143,459 control participants without diabetes or a history of CVD, 5,229 with diabetes but without CVD, and 1,621 with diabetes and a history of CVD. Data from 29 phenotype-specific polygenic scores (PGS) were stacked and combined with clinical risk-factors. Performance was evaluated using a 20% independent hold-out sample, with results stratified on duration of diabetes.
Results In people without diabetes combining the stacked PGS with clinical risk factor modestly outperformed models that exclusively used clinical risk factors, with the largest improvement observed for AF (c-statistic difference: 0.03). In people with diabetes, models that combined the stacked PGS with clinical risk factors showed marked improved performance compared to the risk factor only models. This difference was largest in people with newly diagnosed diabetes (without a history of CVD), with a PGS + clinical risk factor model c-statistic: 0.83 (95%CI 0.83; 0.84) for CHD and 0.84 (95%CI 0.82; 0.85) for HF, compared to a clinical risk factor model c-statistic: 0.68 (95%CI 0.68; 0.69) and 0.60 (95%CI 0.58; 0.62) for CHD and HF respectively.
Conclusions Combining PGS with clinical risk factors improves CVD risk prediction in people with diabetes.
What is already known about this subject?
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a prominent cause of morbidity and mortality for people with type 2 diabetes. The currently available CVD prediction models do not provide sufficiently accurate prediction in people with diabetes, prohibiting much-needed personalization of management strategies.
In the general population, phenotype-specific polygenic scores (PGS) have shown to modestly improve CVD risk prediction. However, models for CVD prediction in the general population are often already highly accurate, limiting the scope for PGS to further improve performance.
Given the multifactorial etiology of CVD, combining information (stacking) from multiple trait-specific PGS (e.g., on CHD, LDL-C and blood pressure) is expected to improve performance.
What is the key question?
What is the added benefit of incorporating PGS with conventional clinical risk factors in CVD prediction for people with type 2 diabetes?
What are the new findings?
In people with diabetes, models that combined the stacked PGS with clinical risk factors showed marked improved performance compared to the risk factor-only models.
While age was the predominant risk factor in people without diabetes, in people with diabetes the contribution of age was outranked by our stacked PGS.
Model performance depended on the duration of diabetes, with models performing better in people with a recent diagnosis, for example in this group the c-statistic for CHD was 0.83 (95%CI 0.83; 0.84), and for HF 0.84 (95%CI 0.82; 0.85).
How might this impact on clinical practice in the foreseeable future?
Combining PGS with clinical risk factors improves CVD risk prediction in people with diabetes. Incorporating PGS in risk prediction models may offer unique possibilities to reliably identify people with a meaningful risk of developing CVD.
Competing Interest Statement
NC serves on data safety and monitoring committees of clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca. AFS and CF have received funding from NewAmsterdam for unrelated work. None of the other authors of this paper has a financial or personal relationship with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of the paper.
Funding Statement
KD is supported by a PhD studentship from the National Productivity Investment Fund MRC Doctoral Training Programme (grant no. MR/S502522/1). AFS is supported by BHF grants PG/18/5033837, PG/22/10989, and the UCL BHF Research Accelerator AA/18/6/34223. CF and AFS received additional support from the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. This work was supported by grant [R01 LM010098] from the National Institutes of Health (USA) and by EU/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking BigData@Heart grant no 116074, as well as by the UKRI/NIHR Multimorbidity fund Mechanism and Therapeutics Research Collaborative MR/V033867/1 and the Rosetrees Trust. JG is supported by the BHF studentship FS/17/70/33482. This work is partially supported by Dutch Research Council (628.011.213).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵** joint senior author
Minor update to Appendix figure.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors