Ondansetron for symptomatic relief in terminal uraemia.

P. Andrews,V. Quan,C. Ogg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDJOURNALS.NDT.A090838

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Selection, optimization and validation of ten chronic disease polygenic risk scores for clinical implementation in diverse US populations

Niall J. Lennon,Leah C. Kottyan,Christopher Kachulis,Noura S. Abul-Husn,Josh Arias,Gillian Belbin,Jennifer E. Below,Sonja I. Berndt,Wendy K. Chung,James J. Cimino,Ellen Wright Clayton,John J. Connolly,David R. Crosslin,Ozan Dikilitas,Digna R. Velez Edwards,QiPing Feng,Marissa Fisher,Robert R. Freimuth,Tian Ge,Joseph T. Glessner,Adam S. Gordon,Candace Patterson,Hakon Hakonarson,Maegan Harden,Margaret Harr,Joel N. Hirschhorn,Clive Hoggart,Li Hsu,Marguerite R. Irvin,Gail P. Jarvik,Elizabeth W. Karlson,Atlas Khan,Amit Khera,Krzysztof Kiryluk,Iftikhar Kullo,Katie Larkin,Nita Limdi,Jodell E. Linder,Ruth J. F. Loos,Yuan Luo,Edyta Malolepsza,Teri A. Manolio,Lisa J. Martin,Li McCarthy,Elizabeth M. McNally,James B. Meigs,Tesfaye B. Mersha,Jonathan D. Mosley,Anjene Musick,Bahram Namjou,Nihal Pai,Lorenzo L. Pesce,Ulrike Peters,Josh F. Peterson,Cynthia A. Prows,Megan J. Puckelwartz,Heidi L. Rehm,Dan M. Roden,Elisabeth A. Rosenthal,Robb Rowley,Konrad Teodor Sawicki,Daniel J. Schaid,Roelof A. J. Smit,Johanna L. Smith,Jordan W. Smoller,Minta Thomas,Hemant Tiwari,Diana M. Toledo,Nataraja Sarma Vaitinadin,David Veenstra,Theresa L. Walunas,Zhe Wang,Wei-Qi Wei,Chunhua Weng,Georgia L. Wiesner,Xianyong Yin,Eimear E. Kenny,Sonja Berndt,Joel Hirschhorn,Ruth Loos,The GIANT Consortium,The All of Us Research Program

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02796-z

IF: 82.9

2024-02-20

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have improved in predictive performance, but several challenges remain to be addressed before PRSs can be implemented in the clinic, including reduced predictive performance of PRSs in diverse populations, and the interpretation and communication of genetic results to both providers and patients. To address these challenges, the National Human Genome Research Institute-funded Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network has developed a framework and pipeline for return of a PRS-based genome-informed risk assessment to 25,000 diverse adults and children as part of a clinical study. From an initial list of 23 conditions, ten were selected for implementation based on PRS performance, medical actionability and potential clinical utility, including cardiometabolic diseases and cancer. Standardized metrics were considered in the selection process, with additional consideration given to strength of evidence in African and Hispanic populations. We then developed a pipeline for clinical PRS implementation (score transfer to a clinical laboratory, validation and verification of score performance), and used genetic ancestry to calibrate PRS mean and variance, utilizing genetically diverse data from 13,475 participants of the All of Us Research Program cohort to train and test model parameters. Finally, we created a framework for regulatory compliance and developed a PRS clinical report for return to providers and for inclusion in an additional genome-informed risk assessment. The initial experience from eMERGE can inform the approach needed to implement PRS-based testing in diverse clinical settings.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
Implementing polygenic risk scores in the clinic

Kyle Vogan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01730-w

IF: 30.8

2024-04-16

Nature Genetics

Abstract:Clinical use of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can potentially improve health outcomes, but there are many open questions about how to implement PRSs effectively and equitably in primary care. To further these goals, Lennon et al. developed a pipeline within the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, consisting of diverse patients drawn from the US population, to perform polygenic risk assessment for ten common diseases and return these results to healthcare providers and patients. The authors outline the procedures used to optimize and validate PRSs for each disease across different ancestry groups and to calibrate the resulting z -scores based on the genetically inferred ancestry of each study participant. They also describe the pipeline used to generate each individualized clinical report, which includes a qualitative framework to indicate diseases for which a high PRS was found. Among the first 2,500 individuals assessed using this pipeline, they identified 581 individuals with a high PRS for at least one of the ten conditions. Future studies will be needed to assess whether return of these PRS results can be leveraged to improve health outcomes through appropriately tailored interventions for disease prevention or early detection. Original reference: Nat. Med. 30 , 480–487 (2024)

genetics & heredity
From a genomic risk model to clinical trial implementation in a learning health system: the ProGRESS Study

Jason L Vassy,Anna M Dornisch,Roshan Karunamuni,Michael Gatzen,Christopher J Kachulis,Niall J Lennon,Charles A Brunette,Morgan E Danowski,Richard L Hauger,Isla P Garraway,Adam S Kibel,Kyung Min Lee,Julie A Lynch,Kara N Maxwell,Brent S Rose,Craig C Teerlink,George J Xu,Sean E Hofherr,Katherine A Lafferty,Katie Larkin,Edyta Malolepsza,Candace J Patterson,Diana M Toledo,Jenny L Donovan,Freddie Hamdy,Richard M Martin,David E Neal,Emma L Turner,Ole A Andreassen,Anders M Dale,Ian G Mills,Jyotsna Batra,Judith Clements,Olivier Cussenot,Cezary Cybulski,Rosalind A Eeles,Jay H Fowke,Eli Marie Grindedal,Robert J Hamilton,Jasmine Lim,Yong-Jie Lu,Robert J MacInnis,Christiane Maier,Lorelei A Mucci,Luc Multigner,Susan L Neuhausen,Sune F Nielsen,Marie-Élise Parent,Jong Y Park,Gyorgy Petrovics,Anna Plym,Azad Razack,Barry S Rosenstein,Johanna Schleutker,Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen,Ruth C Travis,Ana Vega,Catharine ML West,Fredrik Wiklund,Wei Zheng,Profile Steering Committee,IMPACT Study Steering Committee and Collaborators,PRACTICAL Consortium,Million Veteran Program,Tyler M Seibert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.03.24316516

2024-11-04

Abstract:Background: As healthcare moves from a one-size-fits-all approach towards precision care, individual risk prediction is an important step in disease prevention and early detection. Biobank-linked healthcare systems can generate knowledge about genomic risk and test the impact of implementing that knowledge in care. Risk-stratified prostate cancer screening is one clinical application that might benefit from such an approach. Methods: We developed a clinical translation pipeline for genomics-informed prostate cancer screening in a national healthcare system. We used data from 585,418 male participants of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Million Veteran Program (MVP), among whom 101,920 self-identify as Black/African-American, to develop and validate the Prostate CAncer integrated Risk Evaluation (P-CARE) model, a prostate cancer risk prediction model based on a polygenic score, family history, and genetic principal components. The model was externally validated in data from 18,457 PRACTICAL Consortium participants. A novel blended genome-exome (BGE) platform was used to develop a clinical laboratory assay for both the P-CARE model and rare variants in prostate cancer-associated genes, including additional validation in 74,331 samples from the All of Us Research Program. Results: In overall and ancestry-stratified analyses, the polygenic score of 601 variants was associated with any, metastatic, and fatal prostate cancer in MVP and PRACTICAL. Values of the P-CARE model at ≥80th percentile in the multiancestry cohort overall were associated with hazard ratios (HR) of 2.75 (95% CI 2.66-2.84), 2.78 (95% CI 2.54-2.99), and 2.59 (95% CI 2.22-2.97) for any, metastatic, and fatal prostate cancer in MVP, respectively, compared to the median. When high- and low-risk groups were defined as P-CARE HR>1.5 and HR<0.75 for metastatic prostate cancer, the 220,062 (37.6%) high-risk vs.146,826 (25.1%) low-risk participants in MVP had a 47.9% vs. 14.1%, 9.3% vs. 2.0%, and 3.6% vs. 0.8% cumulative cause-specific incidence of any, metastatic, and fatal prostate cancer by age 90, respectively. The clinical assay and reports are now being implemented in a clinical trial of precision prostate cancer screening in the VA healthcare system (Clinicaltrials.gov ). Conclusions: A model consisting of a polygenic score, family history, and genetic principal components describes a clinically important gradient of prostate cancer risk in a diverse patient population and demonstrates the potential of learning health systems to implement and evaluate precision health care approaches.

Genetic and Genomic Medicine
Taking the risk. A systematic review of ethical reasons and moral arguments in the clinical use of polygenic risk scores

Lara Andreoli,Hilde Peeters,Kristel Van Steen,Kris Dierickx

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.63584

2024-03-08

American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A

Abstract:Debates about the prospective clinical use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) have grown considerably in the last years. The potential benefits of PRS to improve patient care at individual and population levels have been extensively underlined. Nonetheless, the use of PRS in clinical contexts presents a number of unresolved ethical challenges and consequent normative gaps that hinder their optimal implementation. Here, we conducted a systematic review of reasons of the normative literature discussing ethical issues and moral arguments related to the use of PRS for the prevention and treatment of common complex diseases. In total, we have included and analyzed 34 records, spanning from 2013 to 2023. The findings have been organized in three major themes: in the first theme, we consider the potential harms of PRS to individuals and their kin. In the theme "Threats to health equity," we consider ethical concerns of social relevance, with a focus on justice issues. Finally, the theme "Towards best practices" collects a series of research priorities and provisional recommendations to be considered for an optimal clinical translation of PRS. We conclude that the use of PRS in clinical care reinvigorates old debates in matters of health justice; however, open questions, regarding best practices in clinical counseling, suggest that the ethical considerations applicable in monogenic settings will not be sufficient to face PRS emerging challenges.

genetics & heredity
Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities

Alicia R. Martin,Masahiro Kanai,Yoichiro Kamatani,Yukinori Okada,Benjamin M. Neale,Mark J. Daly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-019-0379-x

IF: 30.8

2019-03-29

Nature Genetics

Abstract:Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are poised to improve biomedical outcomes via precision medicine. However, the major ethical and scientific challenge surrounding clinical implementation of PRS is that those available today are several times more accurate in individuals of European ancestry than other ancestries. This disparity is an inescapable consequence of Eurocentric biases in genome-wide association studies, thus highlighting that—unlike clinical biomarkers and prescription drugs, which may individually work better in some populations but do not ubiquitously perform far better in European populations—clinical uses of PRS today would systematically afford greater improvement for European-descent populations. Early diversifying efforts show promise in leveling this vast imbalance, even when non-European sample sizes are considerably smaller than the largest studies to date. To realize the full and equitable potential of PRS, greater diversity must be prioritized in genetic studies, and summary statistics must be publically disseminated to ensure that health disparities are not increased for those individuals already most underserved.

genetics & heredity
Polygenic risk scores: from research tools to clinical instruments

Cathryn M. Lewis,Evangelos Vassos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-020-00742-5

IF: 15.266

2020-05-18

Genome Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Genome-wide association studies have shown unequivocally that common complex disorders have a polygenic genetic architecture and have enabled researchers to identify genetic variants associated with diseases. These variants can be combined into a polygenic risk score that captures part of an individual’s susceptibility to diseases. Polygenic risk scores have been widely applied in research studies, confirming the association between the scores and disease status, but their clinical utility has yet to be established. Polygenic risk scores may be used to estimate an individual’s lifetime genetic risk of disease, but the current discriminative ability is low in the general population. Clinical implementation of polygenic risk score (PRS) may be useful in cohorts where there is a higher prior probability of disease, for example, in early stages of diseases to assist in diagnosis or to inform treatment choices. Important considerations are the weaker evidence base in application to non-European ancestry and the challenges in translating an individual’s PRS from a percentile of a normal distribution to a lifetime disease risk. In this review, we consider how PRS may be informative at different points in the disease trajectory giving examples of progress in the field and discussing obstacles that need to be addressed before clinical implementation.

genetics & heredity
Abstract P339: The Clinical Application and Ancestral Diversity of Cardiometabolic Polygenic Risk Scores

Jobanjit S Phulka,Mishal Ashraf,Beenu K Bajwa,Guillaume Pare,Zachary Laksman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.147.suppl_1.p339

IF: 37.8

2023-02-28

Circulation

Abstract:Introduction: A polygenic risk score (PRS) is derived from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) and represents an aggregate of thousands of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that provide a baseline estimate of an individual’s genetic risk for a specific disease or trait at birth. Cardiometabolic disease represents a set of disease processes that historically have disproportionally affected underrepresented racial and minority groups. Furthermore, these groups represent a population generally not well captured by traditional risk scores compared to European cohorts. Since the first GWAS studying myocardial infarction was published, PRSs have increasingly been seen as a promising tool to improve risk stratification of non-European populations. However, how PRSs can be best used in clinical practice remains unclear. Hypothesis: We provide an overview of the PRSs related to cardiometabolic disease, analyze the ancestral diversity of GWAS cohorts, and discuss the evidence supporting their clinical applications. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews protocol was used to conduct a scoping review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. English studies that published a PRS related to atrial fibrillation (AF), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), coronary artery disease (CAD), dyslipidemia, heart failure, heritable cardiomyopathy, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes were reviewed. Results: Across the 4,863 studies screened, 82 articles met the inclusion criteria. The most common PRS related to CAD, followed by hypertension and CVD. Limited ancestral diversity was observed as most studies (56) included only individuals of European ancestry. A smaller proportion of studies (16) published PRSs derived in multi-ancestry cohorts. Only ten studies published a PRS derived solely from a sample population of non-European ancestry (Chinese, East Asian, Japanese, and Korean). The predictive performance of most PRSs was similar to or superior to traditional risk factors. More than half of the included studies (42) reported an integrated risk model combining a PRS with traditional risk factors or a clinical risk tool (FRS, PCE, CHADS2). The integrated risk model consistently improved predictive accuracy, but few studies investigated the performance in a non-European population. Conclusion: In conclusion, this scoping review reports strong evidence for the clinical use of PRSs in AF, CAD, CVD, and hypertension. However, most PRSs are derived in cohorts of European ancestry, which contributes to a lack of PRS transferability across different ancestral groups, likely exacerbating health inequities. Future prospective studies should focus on further establishing the clinical utility of PRSs. Additionally, diversity in future GWAS cohorts is essential to ensure that PRSs reflect the multi-ancestry society at large.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems,peripheral vascular disease
The current state and future of cardiometabolic polygenic risk scores in European and non-European population cohorts

J Phulka,M Ashraf,B Bajwa,G Pare,Z Laksman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwad125.087

IF: 8.526

2023-05-24

European Journal of Preventive Cardiology

Abstract:Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background A polygenic risk score (PRS) is derived from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) and represents an aggregate of thousands of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that provide a baseline estimate of an individual’s genetic risk for a specific disease or trait at birth. Cardiometabolic disease represents a set of disease processes that historically have disproportionally affected underrepresented racial and minority groups. Furthermore, these groups represent a population generally not well captured by traditional risk scores compared to European cohorts. Since the first GWAS studying myocardial infarction was published, PRSs have increasingly been seen as a promising tool to improve risk stratification of non-European populations. However, how PRSs can be best used in clinical practice remains unclear. Purpose To provide an overview of the PRSs related to cardiometabolic disease, analyze the ancestral diversity of GWAS cohorts, and discuss the evidence supporting their clinical applications. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews protocol was used to conduct a scoping review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. English studies that published a PRS related to atrial fibrillation (AF), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), coronary artery disease (CAD), dyslipidemia, heart failure, heritable cardiomyopathy, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes were reviewed. Results Across the 4,863 studies screened, 82 articles met the inclusion criteria. The most common PRS related to CAD, followed by hypertension and CVD. Limited ancestral diversity was observed as most studies (56) included only individuals of European ancestry. A smaller proportion of studies (16) published PRSs derived in multi-ancestry cohorts. Only ten studies published a PRS derived solely from a sample population of non-European ancestry (Chinese, East Asian, Japanese, and Korean). The predictive performance of most PRSs was similar to or superior to traditional risk factors. More than half of the included studies (42) reported an integrated risk model combining a PRS with traditional risk factors or a clinical risk tool (FRS, PCE, CHADS2). The integrated risk model consistently improved predictive accuracy, but few studies investigated the performance in a non-European population. Conclusion In conclusion, this scoping review is the first of its kind and reports strong evidence for the clinical use of PRSs in AF, CAD, CVD, and hypertension. However, most PRSs are derived in cohorts of European ancestry, which contributes to a lack of PRS transferability across different ancestral groups, likely exacerbating health inequities. Future prospective studies should focus on further establishing the clinical utility of PRSs. Additionally, diversity in future GWAS cohorts is essential to ensure that PRSs reflect the multi-ancestry society at large.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Identifying and characterizing disease subpopulations that most benefit from polygenic risk scores

Monica Isgut,Felipe Giuste,Logan Gloster,Aniketh Swain,Katherine Choi,Andrew Hornback,Shriprasad R. Deshpande,May D. Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63705-5

IF: 4.6

2024-09-28

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) hold promise in their potential translation into clinical settings to improve disease risk prediction. An important consideration in integrating PRSs into clinical settings is to gain an understanding of how to identify which subpopulations of individuals most benefit from PRSs for risk prediction. In this study, using the UK Biobank dataset, we trained logistic regression models to predict the 10 year incident risk of myocardial infarction, breast cancer, and schizophrenia using either just clinical features or clinical features combined with PRSs. For each disease, we identified the top 10% subgroup with the greatest magnitude of improvement in risk prediction accuracy attributed to PRSs in the multi-modal model. Using up to ~ 3.6 k demographic, lifestyle, diagnostic, lab, and physical measurement features from the UK Biobank dataset of ~ 500 k individuals, we characterized these subgroups based on various clinical, lifestyle, and demographic characteristics. The incident cases in the top 10% subgroup for each disease represent distinct phenotypes that differ from other cases and that are strongly correlated with genetic predisposition. Our findings provide insights into disease subtypes and can encourage future studies aimed at classifying these individuals to enhance the targeting of polygenic risk scoring in practice.

multidisciplinary sciences
Current State and Future of Polygenic Risk Scores in Cardiometabolic Disease: A Scoping Review

Jobanjit S Phulka,Mishal Ashraf,Beenu K Bajwa,Guillaume Pare,Zachary Laksman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGEN.122.003834

Abstract:A polygenic risk score (PRS) is derived from a genome-wide association study and represents an aggregate of thousands of single-nucleotide polymorphisms that provide a baseline estimate of an individual's genetic risk for a specific disease or trait at birth. However, it remains unclear how PRSs can be used in clinical practice. We provide an overview of the PRSs related to cardiometabolic disease and discuss the evidence supporting their clinical applications and limitations. The Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews protocol was used to conduct a scoping review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. Across the 4863 studies screened, 82 articles met the inclusion criteria. The most common PRS related to coronary artery disease, followed by hypertension and cerebrovascular disease. Limited ancestral diversity was observed in the study sample populations. Most studies included only individuals of European ancestry. The predictive performance of most PRSs was similar to or superior to traditional risk factors. More than half of the included studies reported an integrated risk model combining a derived PRS and clinical risk tools such as the Framingham Risk Score and Pooled Cohort Equations. The inclusion of a PRS into a clinical risk model tended to improve predictive accuracy consistently. This scoping review is the first of its kind and reports strong evidence for the clinical utility of PRSs in coronary artery disease, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, and atrial fibrillation. However, most PRSs are generated in cohorts of European ancestry, which likely contributes to a lack of PRS transferability across different ancestral groups. Future prospective studies should focus on further establishing the clinical utility of PRSs and ensuring diversity is incorporated into genome-wide association study cohorts.
Methodologies underpinning polygenic risk scores estimation: a comprehensive overview

Carene Anne Alene Ndong Sima,Kathryn Step,Yolandi Swart,Haiko Schurz,Caitlin Uren,Marlo Möller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-024-02710-0

2024-10-19

Human Genetics

Abstract:Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have emerged as a promising tool for predicting disease risk and treatment outcomes using genomic data. Thousands of genome-wide association studies (GWAS), primarily involving populations of European ancestry, have supported the development of PRS models. However, these models have not been adequately evaluated in non-European populations, raising concerns about their clinical validity and predictive power across diverse groups. Addressing this issue requires developing novel risk prediction frameworks that leverage genetic characteristics across diverse populations, considering host-microbiome interactions and a broad range of health measures. One of the key aspects in evaluating PRS is understanding the strengths and limitations of various methods for constructing them. In this review, we analyze strengths and limitations of different methods for constructing PRS, including traditional weighted approaches and new methods such as Bayesian and Frequentist penalized regression approaches. Finally, we summarize recent advances in PRS calculation methods development, and highlight key areas for future research, including development of models robust across diverse populations by underlining the complex interplay between genetic variants across diverse ancestral backgrounds in disease risk as well as treatment response prediction. PRS hold great promise for improving disease risk prediction and personalized medicine; therefore, their implementation must be guided by careful consideration of their limitations, biases, and ethical implications to ensure that they are used in a fair, equitable, and responsible manner.

genetics & heredity
Population Performance and Individual Agreement of Coronary Artery Disease Polygenic Risk Scores

Sarah A Abramowitz,Kristin Boulier,Karl Keat,Katie M Cardone,Manu Shivakumar,John M. DePaolo,Renae M. Judy,Penn Medicine BioBank,Dokyoon Kim,Daniel J Rader,Marylyn D Ritchie,Benjamin F Voight,Bogdan Pasaniuc,Michael Levin,Scott M. Damrauer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.25.24310931

2024-07-29

Abstract:Importance: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for coronary artery disease (CAD) are a growing clinical and commercial reality. Whether existing scores provide similar individual-level assessments of disease liability is a critical consideration for clinical implementation that remains uncharacterized. Objective: Characterize the reliability of CAD PRSs that perform equivalently at the population level at predicting individual-level risk. Design: Cross-sectional Study. Setting: All of Us Research Program (AOU), Penn Medicine Biobank (PMBB), and UCLA ATLAS Precision Health Biobank. Participants: Volunteers of diverse genetic backgrounds enrolled in AOU, PMBB, and UCLA with available electronic health record and genotyping data. Exposures: Polygenic risk for CAD from previously published PRSs and new PRSs developed separately from the testing cohorts. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sets of CAD PRSs that perform population prediction equivalently were identified by comparing calibration and discrimination (Brier score and AUROC) of generalized linear models of prevalent CAD using Bayesian analysis of variance. Among equivalently performing scores, individual-level agreement between risk estimates was tested with intraclass correlation (ICC) and Light's Kappa, measures of inter-rater reliability. Results: 50 PRSs were calculated for 171,095 AOU participants. When included in a model of prevalent CAD, 48 scores had practically equivalent Brier scores and AUROCs (region of practical equivalence = 0.02). Across these scores, 84% of participants had at least one score in both the top and bottom risk quintile. Continuous agreement of individual risk predictions from the 48 scores was poor, with an ICC of 0.351 (95% CI; 0.349, 0.352). Agreement between two statistically equivalent scores was moderate, with an ICC of 0.649 (95% CI; 0.646, 0.652). Light's Kappa, used to evaluate consistency of assignment to high-risk thresholds, did not exceed 0.56 (interpreted as 'fair') across statistically and practically equivalent scores. Repeating the analysis among 41,193 PMBB and 50,748 UCLA participants yielded different sets of statistically and practically equivalent scores which also lacked strong individual agreement. Conclusions and Relevance: Across three diverse biobanks, CAD PRSs that performed equivalently at the population level produced unreliable individual risk estimates. Approaches to clinical implementation of CAD PRSs must consider the potential for discordant individual risk estimates from otherwise indistinguishable scores.

Genetic and Genomic Medicine
The Clinical Usefulness of a Glaucoma Polygenic Risk Score in 4 Population-Based European Ancestry Cohorts

Victor A de Vries,Akiko Hanyuda,Joëlle E Vergroesen,Ron Do,David S Friedman,Peter Kraft,Constance Turman,Yuyang Leo Luo,Jessica H Tran,Bart Liefers,Sze H Wong,Rachel H Lee,Nazlee Zebardast,Caroline C W Klaver,Ayellet V Segrè,Louis R Pasquale,Janey L Wiggs,Jae H Kang,Wishal D Ramdas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2024.08.005

IF: 14.277

2024-08-14

Ophthalmology

Abstract:Purpose: We used a polygenic risk score (PRS) to identify high-risk groups for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) within population-based cohorts. Design: Secondary analysis of 4 prospective population-based studies. Participants: We included four European-ancestry cohorts: the United States-based Nurses' Health Study, Nurses' Health Study 2, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study and the Rotterdam Study (RS) in The Netherlands. The United States cohorts included female nurses and male health professionals ≤ 55 years of age. The RS included residents ≤ 45 years of age living in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Methods: Polygenic risk score weights were estimated by applying the lassosum method on imputed genotype and phenotype data from the UK Biobank. This resulted in 144 020 variants, single nucleotide polymorphism and insertions or deletions, with nonzero βs that we used to calculate a PRS in the target populations. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, we estimated the relationship between the standardized PRS and relative risk for POAG. Additionally, POAG prediction was tested by calculating these models' concordance (Harrell's C statistic). Finally, we assessed the association between PRS tertiles and glaucoma-related traits. Main outcome measures: The relative risk for POAG and Harrell's C statistic. Results: Among 1046 patients and 38 809‬ control participants, the relative risk (95% confidence interval) for POAG for participants in the highest PRS quintile was 3.99 (3.08-5.18) times higher in the United States cohorts and 4.89 (2.93-8.17) times higher in the RS, compared with participants with median genetic risk (third quintile). Combining age, sex, intraocular pressure of more than 25 mmHg, and family history resulted in a meta-analyzed concordance of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.75). Adding the PRS to this model improved the concordance to 0.82 (95% CI, 0.80-0.84). In a meta-analysis of all cohorts, patients in the highest tertile showed a larger cup-to-disc ratio at diagnosis, by 0.10 (95% CI, 0.06 0.14), and a 2.07-fold increased risk of requiring glaucoma surgery (95% CI, 1.19-3.60). Conclusions: Incorporating a PRS into a POAG predictive model improves identification concordance from 0.75 up to 0.82, supporting its potential for guiding more cost-effective screening strategies. Financial disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: new perspectives needed on familiar ethical issues

Anna C. F. Lewis,Robert C. Green

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-021-00829-7

IF: 15.266

2021-01-28

Genome Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Clinical use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) will look very different to the more familiar monogenic testing. Here we argue that despite these differences, most of the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) raised in the monogenic setting, such as the relevance of results to family members, the approach to secondary and incidental findings, and the role of expert mediators, continue to be relevant in the polygenic context, albeit in modified form. In addition, PRS will reanimate other old debates. Their use has been proposed both in the practice of clinical medicine and of public health, two contexts with differing norms. In each of these domains, it is unclear what endpoints clinical use of PRS should aim to maximize and under what constraints. Reducing health disparities is a key value for public health, but clinical use of PRS could exacerbate race-based health disparities owing to differences in predictive power across ancestry groups. Finally, PRS will force a reckoning with pre-existing questions concerning biomarkers, namely the relevance of self-reported race, ethnicity and ancestry, and the relationship of risk factors to disease diagnoses. In this Opinion, we argue that despite the parallels to the monogenic setting, new work is urgently needed to gather data, consider normative implications, and develop best practices around this emerging branch of genomics.

genetics & heredity
Risk assessment for colorectal cancer via polygenic risk score and lifestyle exposure: a large-scale association study of East Asian and European populations

Junyi Xin,Mulong Du,Dongying Gu,Kewei Jiang,Mengyun Wang,Mingjuan Jin,Yeting Hu,Shuai Ben,Silu Chen,Wei Shao,Shuwei Li,Haiyan Chu,Linjun Zhu,Chen Li,Kun Chen,Kefeng Ding,Zhengdong Zhang,Hongbing Shen,Meilin Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-023-01156-9

IF: 15.266

2023-01-01

Genome Medicine

Abstract:Background The genetic architectures of colorectal cancer are distinct across different populations. To date, the majority of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are derived from European (EUR) populations, which limits their accurate extrapolation to other populations. Here, we aimed to generate a PRS by incorporating East Asian (EAS) and EUR ancestry groups and validate its utility for colorectal cancer risk assessment among different populations. Methods A large-scale colorectal cancer genome-wide association study (GWAS), harboring 35,145 cases and 288,934 controls from EAS and EUR populations, was used for the EAS-EUR GWAS meta-analysis and the construction of candidate EAS-EUR PRSs via different approaches. The performance of each PRS was then validated in external GWAS datasets of EAS (727 cases and 1452 controls) and EUR (1289 cases and 1284 controls) ancestries, respectively. The optimal PRS was further tested using the UK Biobank longitudinal cohort of 355,543 individuals and ultimately applied to stratify individual risk attached by healthy lifestyle. Results In the meta-analysis across EAS and EUR populations, we identified 48 independent variants beyond genome-wide significance ( P < 5 × 10 −8 ) at previously reported loci. Among 26 candidate EAS-EUR PRSs, the PRS-CSx approach-derived PRS (defined as PRS CSx ) that harbored genome-wide variants achieved the optimal discriminatory ability in both validation datasets, as well as better performance in the EAS population compared to the PRS derived from known variants. Using the UK Biobank cohort, we further validated a significant dose-response effect of PRS CSx on incident colorectal cancer, in which the risk was 2.11- and 3.88-fold higher in individuals with intermediate and high PRS CSx than in the low score subgroup ( P trend = 8.15 × 10 −53 ). Notably, the detrimental effect of being at a high genetic risk could be largely attenuated by adherence to a favorable lifestyle, with a 0.53% reduction in 5-year absolute risk. Conclusions In summary, we systemically constructed an EAS-EUR PRS to effectively stratify colorectal cancer risk, which highlighted its clinical implication among diverse ancestries. Importantly, these findings also supported that a healthy lifestyle could reduce the genetic impact on incident colorectal cancer.
Genomic Insights for Personalized Care: Motivating At-Risk Individuals Toward Evidence-Based Health Practices

Tony Chen,Giang Pham,Louis Fox,Nina Adler,Xiaoyu Wang,Jingning Zhang,Jinyoung Byun,Younghun Han,Gretchen RB Saunders,Dajiang Liu,Michael J Bray,Alex T Ramsey,James McKay,Laura J Bierut,Christopher Ian Amos,Rayjean J. Hung,Xihong Lin,Haoyu Zhang,Li-Shiun Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.19.24304556

2024-06-21

Abstract:Background: Lung cancer and tobacco use pose significant global health challenges, necessitating a comprehensive translational roadmap for improved prevention strategies. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are powerful tools for patient risk stratification but have not yet been widely used in primary care for lung cancer, particularly in diverse patient populations. Methods: We propose the GREAT care paradigm, which employs PRSs to stratify disease risk and personalize interventions. We developed PRSs using large-scale multi-ancestry genome-wide association studies and standardized PRS distributions across all ancestries. We applied our PRSs to 796 individuals from the GISC Trial, 350,154 from UK Biobank (UKBB), and 210,826 from All of Us Research Program (AoU), totaling 561,776 individuals of diverse ancestry. Results: Significant odds ratios (ORs) for lung cancer and difficulty quitting smoking were observed in both UKBB and AoU. For lung cancer, the ORs for individuals in the highest risk group (top 20% versus bottom 20%) were 1.85 (95% CI: 1.58-2.18) in UKBB and 2.39 (95% CI: 1.93-2.97) in AoU. For difficulty quitting smoking, the ORs (top 33% versus bottom 33%) were 1.36 (95% CI: 1.32-1.41) in UKBB and 1.32 (95% CI: 1.28-1.36) in AoU. Conclusion: Our PRS-based intervention model leverages large-scale genetic data for robust risk assessment across populations. This model will be evaluated in two cluster-randomized clinical trials aimed at motivating health behavior changes in high-risk patients of diverse ancestry. This pioneering approach integrates genomic insights into primary care, promising improved outcomes in cancer prevention and tobacco treatment. Keywords: Lung Cancer, Polygenic risk scores, Cancer prevention, Personalized interventions, Translational roadmap, Health behavior change

Genetic and Genomic Medicine
[Comparison of the anti-tumor activity of extracts of the epiphysis and hypothalamus, melatonin and sigetin in mice with transplanted mammary gland cancer].

V. Anisimov,V. Morozov,V. Khavinson,V. M. Dil'man

Abstract:
Polygenic and clinical risk scores and their impact on age at onset and prediction of cardiometabolic diseases and common cancers

Aarno Palotie,Mark Daly,Howard Jacob,Athena Matakidou,Heiko Runz,Sally John,Robert Plenge,Mark McCarthy,Julie Hunkapiller,Meg Ehm,Dawn Waterworth,Caroline Fox,Anders Malarstig,Kathy Klinger,Kathy Call,Tomi Mäkelä,Jaakko Kaprio,Petri Virolainen,Kari Pulkki,Terhi Kilpi,Markus Perola,Jukka Partanen,Anne Pitkäranta,Riitta Kaarteenaho,Seppo Vainio,Kimmo Savinainen,Veli-Matti Kosma,Urho Kujala,Outi Tuovila,Minna Hendolin,Raimo Pakkanen,Jeff Waring,Bridget Riley-Gillis,Athena Matakidou,Heiko Runz,Jimmy Liu,Shameek Biswas,Julie Hunkapiller,Dawn Waterworth,Meg Ehm,Dorothee Diogo,Caroline Fox,Anders Malarstig,Catherine Marshall,Xinli Hu,Kathy Call,Kathy Klinger,Matthias Gossel,Samuli Ripatti,Johanna Schleutker,Markus Perola,Mikko Arvas,Olli Carpen,Reetta Hinttala,Johannes Kettunen,Reijo Laaksonen,Arto Mannermaa,Juha Paloneva,Urho Kujala,Outi Tuovila,Minna Hendolin,Raimo Pakkanen,Nina Mars,,Jukka T. Koskela,Pietari Ripatti,Tuomo T. J. Kiiskinen,Aki S. Havulinna,Joni V. Lindbohm,Ari Ahola-Olli,Mitja Kurki,Juha Karjalainen,Priit Palta,Benjamin M. Neale,Veikko Salomaa,Elisabeth Widén

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0800-0

IF: 82.9

2020-04-01

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have shown promise in predicting susceptibility to common diseases1–3. We estimated their added value in clinical risk prediction of five common diseases, using large-scale biobank data (FinnGen; n = 135,300) and the FINRISK study with clinical risk factors to test genome-wide PRSs for coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, breast cancer and prostate cancer. We evaluated the lifetime risk at different PRS levels, and the impact on disease onset and on prediction together with clinical risk scores. Compared to having an average PRS, having a high PRS contributed 21% to 38% higher lifetime risk, and 4 to 9 years earlier disease onset. PRSs improved model discrimination over age and sex in type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, breast cancer and prostate cancer, and over clinical risk in type 2 diabetes, breast cancer and prostate cancer. In all diseases, PRSs improved reclassification over clinical thresholds, with the largest net reclassification improvements for early-onset coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation and prostate cancer. This study provides evidence for the additional value of PRSs in clinical disease prediction. The practical applications of polygenic risk information for stratified screening or for guiding lifestyle and medical interventions in the clinical setting remain to be defined in further studies.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
Pharmacogenomics polygenic risk score: Ready or not for prime time?

Sonal Singh,Gabriele Stocco,Katherine N. Theken,Alyson Dickson,QiPing Feng,Jason H. Karnes,Jonathan D. Mosley,Nihal El Rouby,Nihal El Rouby

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13893

2024-08-01

Clinical and Translational Science

Abstract:Pharmacogenomic Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) have emerged as a tool to address the polygenic nature of pharmacogenetic phenotypes, increasing the potential to predict drug response. Most pharmacogenomic PRS have been extrapolated from disease‐associated variants identified by genome wide association studies (GWAS), although some have begun to utilize genetic variants from pharmacogenomic GWAS. As pharmacogenomic PRS hold the promise of enabling precision medicine, including stratified treatment approaches, it is important to assess the opportunities and challenges presented by the current data. This assessment will help determine how pharmacogenomic PRS can be advanced and transitioned into clinical use. In this review, we present a summary of recent evidence, evaluate the current status, and identify several challenges that have impeded the progress of pharmacogenomic PRS. These challenges include the reliance on extrapolations from disease genetics and limitations inherent to pharmacogenomics research such as low sample sizes, phenotyping inconsistencies, among others. We finally propose recommendations to overcome the challenges and facilitate the clinical implementation. These recommendations include standardizing methodologies for phenotyping, enhancing collaborative efforts, developing new statistical methods to capitalize on drug‐specific genetic associations for PRS construction. Additional recommendations include enhancing the infrastructure that can integrate genomic data with clinical predictors, along with implementing user‐friendly clinical decision tools, and patient education. Ethical and regulatory considerations should address issues related to patient privacy, informed consent and safe use of PRS. Despite these challenges, ongoing research and large‐scale collaboration is likely to advance the field and realize the potential of pharmacogenomic PRS.

medicine, research & experimental
Using polygenic risk modification to improve breast cancer prevention: study protocol for the PRiMo multicentre randomised controlled trial

Simone McInerny,Lyon Mascarenhas,Tatiane Yanes,Lara Petelin,Georgia Chenevix-Trench,Melissa C Southey,Mary-Anne Young,Paul A James

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087874

IF: 3.006

2024-08-05

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction: Established personal and familial risk factors contribute collectively to a woman's risk of breast or ovarian cancer. Existing clinical services offer genetic testing for pathogenic variants in high-risk genes to investigate these risks but recent information on the role of common genomic variants, in the form of a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS), has provided the potential to further personalise breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment. Data from cohort studies support the potential of an integrated risk assessment to improve targeted risk management but experience of this approach in clinical practice is limited. Methods and analysis: The polygenic risk modification trial is an Australian multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial of integrated risk assessment including personal and family risk factors with inclusion of breast and ovarian PRS vs standard care. The study will enrol women, unaffected by cancer, undergoing predictive testing at a familial cancer clinic for a pathogenic variant in a known breast cancer (BC) or ovarian cancer (OC) predisposition gene (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, RAD51C, RAD51D). Array-based genotyping will be used to generate breast cancer (313 SNP) and ovarian cancer (36 SNP) PRS. A suite of materials has been developed for the trial including an online portal for patient consent and questionnaires, and a clinician education programme to train healthcare providers in the use of integrated risk assessment. Long-term follow-up will evaluate differences in the assessed risk and management advice, patient risk management intentions and adherence, patient-reported experience and outcomes, and the health service implications of personalised risk assessment. Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and at all participating centres. Study findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, and directly to participants. Trial registration number: ACTRN12621000009819.

Ondansetron for symptomatic relief in terminal uraemia.

Selection, optimization and validation of ten chronic disease polygenic risk scores for clinical implementation in diverse US populations

Implementing polygenic risk scores in the clinic

From a genomic risk model to clinical trial implementation in a learning health system: the ProGRESS Study

Taking the risk. A systematic review of ethical reasons and moral arguments in the clinical use of polygenic risk scores

Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities

Polygenic risk scores: from research tools to clinical instruments

Abstract P339: The Clinical Application and Ancestral Diversity of Cardiometabolic Polygenic Risk Scores

The current state and future of cardiometabolic polygenic risk scores in European and non-European population cohorts

Identifying and characterizing disease subpopulations that most benefit from polygenic risk scores

Current State and Future of Polygenic Risk Scores in Cardiometabolic Disease: A Scoping Review

Methodologies underpinning polygenic risk scores estimation: a comprehensive overview

Population Performance and Individual Agreement of Coronary Artery Disease Polygenic Risk Scores

The Clinical Usefulness of a Glaucoma Polygenic Risk Score in 4 Population-Based European Ancestry Cohorts

Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: new perspectives needed on familiar ethical issues

Risk assessment for colorectal cancer via polygenic risk score and lifestyle exposure: a large-scale association study of East Asian and European populations

Genomic Insights for Personalized Care: Motivating At-Risk Individuals Toward Evidence-Based Health Practices

[Comparison of the anti-tumor activity of extracts of the epiphysis and hypothalamus, melatonin and sigetin in mice with transplanted mammary gland cancer].

Polygenic and clinical risk scores and their impact on age at onset and prediction of cardiometabolic diseases and common cancers

Pharmacogenomics polygenic risk score: Ready or not for prime time?

Using polygenic risk modification to improve breast cancer prevention: study protocol for the PRiMo multicentre randomised controlled trial