Key result
Blood pressure polygenic risk score linked to ~2.2 mmHg higher daytime systolic BP per SD.
Why the study?
Genetic predisposition is a risk factor for office hypertension, but its ability to identify individuals with ambulatory daytime hypertension is unclear.
Does genetic predisposition (polygenic risk scores or family history) improve the prediction of ambulatory daytime hypertension in a young population beyond baseline clinical algorithms?
Cross-Sectional (n=1,444)
Does genetic predisposition (polygenic risk scores or family history) improve the prediction of ambulatory daytime hypertension in a young population beyond baseline clinical algorithms?
In young adults, polygenic risk scores offer a modest incremental benefit over traditional clinical risk algorithms in identifying out-of-office hypertension, whereas self-reported family history yields no incremental predictive value.
PRS may modestly aid ambulatory hypertension detection in young adults; leaves open whether genetic data should enter clinical algorithms.
Genetic predisposition is a risk factor for office hypertension. We sought to determine whether genetic predisposition identifies individuals with ambulatory daytime hypertension. 1444 participants from the GAPP study (ages 25–41) were analyzed. We evaluated two measures of predisposition to hypertension: family history and polygenic risk scores (PRS). We evaluated correlation of predisposition with blood pressure traits and compared incremental value of each predisposition measure to a validated ambulatory BP prediction model. 12% of participants had office hypertension, while 37% had out-of-office hypertension. The correlation between PRS and family history of hypertension was low (R(2) = 4.96x10(-3)), but both were strongly associated with ambulatory blood pressure (2.2 mmHg per 1 SD increase [95% CI: 1.6, 2.7] & 2.4 mmHg increase with positive family history [95% CI: 1.3, 3.4], respectively). PRS provides incremental improvement predicting ambulatory systolic blood pressure beyond a validated blood pressure prediction score (ΔAIC = −33), whereas family history does not (ΔAIC = 1). The difference between a baseline prediction algorithm for identifying ambulatory systolic hypertension (positive likelihood ratio of 6.87 [95% CI: 5.56, 8.49]; negative likelihood ratio of 0.45 [95% CI: 0.39, 0.51]) and the same model with PRS integrated (positive likelihood ratio of 7.69 [95% CI: 6.18, 9.57]; negative likelihood ratio of 0.43 [95% CI: 0.37, 0.49]) was modest. In a white European sample from Liechtenstein, PRS provides incremental information in identification of individuals with ambulatory hypertension, unlike family history. However, these gains are modest and warrant further development to improve predictive utility at the point-of-care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Narula et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Ambulatory and out-of-office hypertension (n=1,444). Polygenic risk score (PRS) vs. Baseline clinical risk model (PROOF-BP) was evaluated on Ambulatory daytime systolic blood pressure (2.2 mmHg per 1 SD increase, 95% CI 1.6-2.7, p=<0.001). A blood pressure polygenic risk score was significantly associated with ambulatory daytime systolic blood pressure (2.2 mmHg increase per 1 SD) and provided modest incremental value beyond a validated clinical prediction model for identifying ambulatory hypertension.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: