Key result
A polygenic risk score derived from a multi-ancestry GWAS meta-analysis significantly predicted heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (aOR 2.27) and outperformed previous scores.
Why the study?
Identifying individuals at high risk of heart failure during precursor stages could allow earlier initiation of treatments to modify disease progression.
Does a polygenic risk score derived from a multi-ancestry GWAS meta-analysis improve the prediction of heart failure subtypes (HFrEF and HFpEF) compared to previous scores?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,354,739)
Yes
Does a polygenic risk score derived from a multi-ancestry GWAS meta-analysis improve the prediction of heart failure subtypes (HFrEF and HFpEF) compared to previous scores?
A multi-ancestry polygenic risk score for heart failure improves the prediction of HFrEF over previous scores, but is less powerful for predicting HFpEF, highlighting the distinct genetic heterogeneity between heart failure subtypes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May refine HFrEF risk stratification; extends prior PRS with multi-ancestry data and subtype specificity.
SUMMARY Identifying individuals at high risk of heart failure during precursor stages could allow for earlier initiation of treatments to modify disease progression. We performed a GWAS meta- analysis to generate a heart failure (HF) polygenic risk score (PRS) then tested the association with phenotypic subtypes (reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF] and preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]) to evaluate the value of polygenic risk prediction. Results from the European-ancestry analysis showed that an ancestry-matched PRS, calculated from GBMI meta-analysis outperformed the previous HF GWAS (HERMES), yielding an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 2.27 (95% CI: 2.05-2.51; p: 1.76×10 −56 ) from GBMI compared to 1.30 (95% CI: 1.18-1.44; p: 1.42×10 − 7 ) from HERMES, and 1.49 (95% CI: 1.33-1.66; p: 8.38×10 −13 ) compared to 1.17 (95% CI: 1.05- 1.31; p: 0.004) for HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively. Next, we evaluated the performance differences between ancestry-matched and multi-ancestry PRS in the African American cohort. The GBMI multi-ancestry GWAS-based PRS had a significant aOR of 1.49 (p: 0.006). Findings suggest that a PRS for heart failure derived from the GBMI multi-ancestry study is useful in predicting HFrEF, but less powerful in predicting HFpEF in an independent cohort. The difficulty in predicting HFpEF could result from the GBMI HF phenotype, preferencing HFrEF over HFpEF, and/or greater genetic heterogeneity in the HFpEF phenotype.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure (HFrEF and HFpEF) (n=1,354,739). GBMI multi-ancestry heart failure polygenic risk score (PRS) vs. HERMES PRS or lower genetic risk was evaluated on Prediction of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in European-ancestry individuals (aOR 2.27, 95% CI 2.05-2.51, p=1.76x10-56). A polygenic risk score derived from a multi-ancestry GWAS meta-analysis significantly predicted heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (aOR 2.27) and outperformed previous scores.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: