Why the study?
Accurate prediction of atrial fibrillation is desirable to identify high-risk individuals early, but the clinical value of polygenic risk scores in AF remains uncertain.
Does the addition of polygenic risk scores to clinical models improve the prediction of atrial fibrillation and cardioembolic stroke?
Does the addition of polygenic risk scores to clinical models improve the prediction of atrial fibrillation and cardioembolic stroke?
Polygenic risk scores can improve existing clinical models for predicting atrial fibrillation, but require standardization before routine clinical adoption.
PRS may refine AF models in research; leaves open standardization before any clinical testing.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common heart arrhythmia and a major cause of cardioembolic stroke. Therefore, accurate prediction is desirable to allow high-risk individuals to be identified early and their risk lowered before complications arise. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have become a popular method of quantifying aggregated genetic risk from common variants, but their clinical value in AF remains uncertain. This literature review summarizes the associations between PRS and AF risk and discusses the evidence for the clinical utility of PRS for AF prediction. Stroke risk in patients with AF is also considered. Despite consistent associations between PRS and AF risk, the performance of PRS as a stand-alone tool for AF prediction was poor. However, addition of PRS to the existing AF prediction models commonly improved the predictive performance above that of the clinical models alone, including in cohorts with comorbid cardiovascular disease. Associations between PRS and cardioembolic stroke risk in patients with AF have also been reported, but improvements in stroke prediction models from PRS have been minimal. PRS are likely to add value to the existing clinical AF prediction models; however, standardization of PRS across studies and populations will likely be required before they can be meaningfully adopted into routine clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gibson et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: