Key result
High combined clinical and genetic risk linked to ~651% greater VTE risk versus low risk.
Why the study?
Whether clinically recorded risk factors and genetic variants can be combined into a clinically applicable predictive score for venous thromboembolism risk remains unknown.
Does a combined clinical and genetic risk score improve the prediction of primary venous thromboembolism compared to clinical or genetic factors alone?
Cohort (n=502,536)
Does a combined clinical and genetic risk score improve the prediction of primary venous thromboembolism compared to clinical or genetic factors alone?
Hazard Ratio: 7.51 (95% CI 6.28–8.98)
A combined clinical and polygenic risk score significantly improves the prediction of primary venous thromboembolism risk, which could help guide decisions regarding prophylaxis.
May enhance VTE stratification when combining scores; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
Both clinical and genetic factors drive the risk of venous thromboembolism. However, whether clinically recorded risk factors and genetic variants can be combined into a clinically applicable predictive score remains unknown. Using Cox proportional-hazard models, we analyzed the association of risk factors with the likelihood of venous thromboembolism in U.K. Biobank, a large prospective cohort. We then created a polygenic risk score of 36 single nucleotide polymorphisms and a clinical score determined by age, sex, body mass index, previous cancer diagnosis, smoking status, and fracture in the last 5 years. Participants were at significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism if they were at high clinical risk (subhazard ratio, 4.37 [95% CI, 3.85-4.97]) or high genetic risk (subhazard ratio, 3.02 [95% CI, 2.63-3.47]) relative to participants at low clinical or genetic risk, respectively. The combined model, consisting of clinical and genetic components, was significantly better than either the clinical or the genetic model alone (P < 0.001). Participants at high risk in the combined score had nearly an eightfold increased risk of venous thromboembolism relative to participants at low risk (subhazard ratio, 7.51 [95% CI, 6.28-8.98]). This risk score can be used to guide decisions regarding venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, although external validation is needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kolin et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Venous thromboembolism (n=502,536). Combined clinical and genetic risk score vs. Low risk score was evaluated on Incident primary venous thromboembolism (SHR 7.51, 95% CI 6.28-8.98). Participants at high risk based on a combined clinical and genetic score had a nearly eightfold increased risk of venous thromboembolism relative to those at low risk (SHR 7.51).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: