Why the study?
Patients with de novo chest pain frequently lack CAD, leading to non-impactful testing. The study investigated whether polygenic risk scores and proteomics improve prediction of CAD absence over PMRS alone.
Does combining polygenic and proteomic risk scores with clinical risk factors improve the prediction of absence of CAD in patients with de novo chest pain?
Does combining polygenic and proteomic risk scores with clinical risk factors improve the prediction of absence of CAD in patients with de novo chest pain?
Incorporating targeted proteomics and polygenic risk scores into clinical risk assessment significantly improves the ability to predict the absence of CAD in patients with de novo chest pain.
May refine absence-of-CAD prediction when added to PMRS in low-intermediate risk patients; extends risk models but observational data leave practice change open.
Background: Patients with de novo chest pain, referred for evaluation of possible coronary artery disease (CAD), frequently have an absence of CAD resulting in millions of tests not having any clinical impact. The objective of this study was to investigate whether polygenic risk scores and targeted proteomics improve the prediction of absence of CAD in patients with suspected CAD, when added to the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) minimal risk score (PMRS). Methods: Genotyping and targeted plasma proteomics (N=368 proteins) were performed in 1440 patients with symptoms suspected to be caused by CAD undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography. Based on individual genotypes, a polygenic risk score for CAD (PRS CAD ) was calculated. The prediction was performed using combinations of PRS CAD , proteins, and PMRS as features in models using stability selection and machine learning. Results: Prediction of absence of CAD yielded an area under the curve of PRS CAD -model, 0.64±0.03; proteomic-model, 0.58±0.03; and PMRS model, 0.76±0.02. No significant correlation was found between the genetic and proteomic risk scores (Pearson correlation coefficient, −0.04; P =0.13). Optimal predictive ability was achieved by the full model (PRS CAD +protein+PMRS) yielding an area under the curve of 0.80±0.02 for absence of CAD, significantly better than the PMRS model alone ( P <0.001). For reclassification purpose, the full model enabled down-classification of 49% (324 of 661) of the 5% to 15% pretest probability patients and 18% (113 of 611) of >15% pretest probability patients. Conclusions: For patients with chest pain and low-intermediate CAD risk, incorporating targeted proteomics and polygenic risk scores into the risk assessment substantially improved the ability to predict the absence of CAD. Genetics and proteomics seem to add complementary information to the clinical risk factors and improve risk stratification in this large patient group. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02264717
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Möller et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: