Key result
Adding multi-omics to SCORE2 improves MACE risk prediction with ~21% net reclassification improvement.
Why the study?
Does integrating multi-omics biomarkers into the SCORE2 model improve the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events in apparently healthy individuals without CVD or diabetes?
Cohort (n=26,841)
Does integrating multi-omics biomarkers into the SCORE2 model improve the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events in apparently healthy individuals without CVD or diabetes?
Effect estimate: C-index 0.774 vs 0.714; NRI 20.7%
p-value: p=<0.001
Integrating multi-omics data (proteomics, metabolomics, and polygenic risk scores) into the SCORE2 model significantly improves 10-year cardiovascular risk prediction in healthy individuals, with optimal biomarker combinations differing by sex.
Background While multi-omics approaches incorporating polygenic risk scores (PRS), metabolomics, and proteomics have shown promise in improving cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction, their added value beyond sex-specific CVD risk factor-based models remains underexplored. Purpose We aimed to assess whether integrating multi-omics biomarkers into the SCORE2 model improves the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in apparently healthy individuals. Methods This study included 26,841 UK Biobank participants, aged 40-69 years, and without CVD and diabetes. Multi-omics biomarkers were fitted in sex-specific models including the variables of SCORE2 and 9 metabolites, 12 proteins, and a PRS of about 1 million SNPs in males, as well as 7 metabolites, 11 proteins, and a PRS of about 1 million SNPs in females. The model’s performance of SCORE2 and the multi-omics extended model were compared with Harrell’s C-index and the net reclassification index (NRI). Results Over a 10-year follow-up, 1,226 MACE events occurred. Integrating multi-omics biomarkers into SCORE2 significantly improved the predictive performance (C-index: 0.714 to 0.774, p<0.001; NRI: 20.7%). In males, the C-index improved from 0.670 to 0.736 (ΔC-index = +0.066, p<0.001; NRI = 17.1%), while in females, it increased from 0.724 to 0.786 (ΔC-index = +0.062, p<0.001; NRI = 22.5%). However, full multi-omics measurements may not be needed because the combination of proteomics and PRS in males (C-index: 0.736) and proteomics and metabolomics in females (C-index: 0.787) had comparable model performance. Conclusion Integrating multi-omics biomarkers significantly improves CVD risk prediction beyond traditional models, with different optimal biomarker combinations in males and females.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xie et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Apparently healthy individuals without CVD and diabetes (n=26,841). Multi-omics biomarkers integrated into SCORE2 model vs. SCORE2 model alone was evaluated on Prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (C-index 0.774 vs 0.714; NRI 20.7%, p=<0.001). Integrating multi-omics biomarkers into the SCORE2 model significantly improved the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (C-index: 0.714 to 0.774; NRI: 20.7%; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: