Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37489768›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2023

Using Polygenic Risk Scores for Prioritizing Individuals at Greatest Need of a Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment.

Ryan Chung, Zhe Xu, Matthew Arnold, Samantha Ip, Hannah Harrison, Jessica Barrett, Lisa Pennells, Lois G Kim, Emanuele Di Angelantonio, Ellie Paige and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ryan ChungBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6545-4669
Zhe XuBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1519-6707
Matthew ArnoldBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge United Kingdom.
Samantha IpBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9162-6727
Hannah HarrisonCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8952-852X
Jessica BarrettMedical Research Council Biostatistics Unit University of Cambridge United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1889-9803
Lisa PennellsBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8594-3061
Lois G KimBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4552-3820
Emanuele Di AngelantonioBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8776-6719
Ellie PaigeNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University Canberra Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0855-9872
Scott C RitchieBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8454-9548
Michael InouyeBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge United Kingdom.
Juliet A Usher-SmithPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8501-2531
Angela M WoodBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7937-304X
University of Cambridge · GBAustralian National University · AUThe George Institute for Global Health · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation BCDSA/100 005British Heart Foundation FS/18/56/34177British Heart Foundation RE/13/6/30180British Heart Foundation RG/13/13/30194British Heart Foundation RG/18/13/33946British Heart Foundation SP/18/3/33801Cancer Research UK C18081/A31373Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/5Medical Research Council MR/K014811/1Medical Research Council MR/L501566/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background The aim of this study was to provide quantitative evidence of the use of polygenic risk scores for systematically identifying individuals for invitation for full formal cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment. Methods and Results A total of 108 685 participants aged 40 to 69 years, with measured biomarkers, linked primary care records, and genetic data in UK Biobank were used for model derivation and population health modeling. Prioritization tools using age, polygenic risk scores for coronary artery disease and stroke, and conventional risk factors for CVD available within longitudinal primary care records were derived using sex-specific Cox models. We modeled the implications of initiating guideline-recommended statin therapy after prioritizing individuals for invitation to a formal CVD risk assessment. If primary care records were used to prioritize individuals for formal risk assessment using age- and sex-specific thresholds corresponding to 5% false-negative rates, then the numbers of men and women needed to be screened to prevent 1 CVD event are 149 and 280, respectively. In contrast, adding polygenic risk scores to both prioritization and formal assessments, and selecting thresholds to capture the same number of events, resulted in a number needed to screen of 116 for men and 180 for women. Conclusions Using both polygenic risk scores and primary care records to prioritize individuals at highest risk of a CVD event for a formal CVD risk assessment can efficiently prioritize those who need interventions the most than using primary care records alone. This could lead to better allocation of resources by reducing the number of risk assessments in primary care while still preventing the same number of CVD events.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesCoronary Artery DiseaseStrokeFemaleHumansMaleRisk AssessmentRisk Factorscardiovascular diseaseelectronic health recordsgenomicsprimary care recordsscreening

Identifiers

PMID37489768
PMCPMC7614905
OpenAlexW4385231217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.