Abstract
Background Ascending thoracic aortic dilation is a complex trait that involves modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors and can lead to thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection. Clinical risk factors have been shown to predict ascending thoracic aortic diameter. Polygenic scores (PGS) are increasingly used to assess clinical risk for multifactorial diseases. The degree to which a PGS can improve aortic diameter prediction is not known. In this study we tested the extent to which the addition of a PGS to clinical prediction algorithms improves the prediction of aortic diameter.
Methods The patient cohort comprised 6,790 Penn Medicine Biobank (PMBB) participants with available echocardiography and clinical data linked to genome-wide genotype data. Linear regression models were used to integrate PGS weights derived from a large genome wide association study of thoracic aortic diameter in the UK biobank and were compared to the performance of the standard and a reweighted variation of the recently published AORTA Score.
Results Cohort participants were 56% male, had a median age of 61 years (IQR 52-70) with a mean ascending aortic diameter of 3.4 cm (SD 0.5). Compared to the AORTA Score which explained 28.4% (95% CI 28.1% to 29.2%) of the variance in aortic diameter, AORTA Score + PGS explained 28.8%, (95% CI 28.1% to 29.6%), the reweighted AORTA score explained 30.4% (95% CI 29.6% to 31.2%), and the reweighted AORTA Score + PGS explained 31.0% (95% CI 30.2% to 31.8%). The addition of a PGS to either the AORTA Score or the reweighted AORTA Score improved model sensitivity for the identifying individuals with a thoracic aortic diameter ≥ 4 cm. The respective areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve for the AORTA Score + PGS (0.771, 95% CI 0.756 to 0.787) and reweighted AORTA Score + PGS (0.785, 95% CI 0.770 to 0.800) were greater than the standard AORTA Score (0.767, 95% CI 0.751 to 0.783) and reweighted AORTA Score (0.780 95% CI 0.765 to 0.795).
Conclusions We demonstrated that inclusion of a PGS to the AORTA Score results in a small but clinically meaningful performance enhancement. Further investigation is necessary to determine if combining genetic and clinical risk prediction improves outcomes for thoracic aortic disease.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The PMBB is supported by Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania, a gift from the Smilow family, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under CTSA award number UL1TR001878. J.D. is supported by the American Heart Association (23POST1011251). M.G.L. is supported by the Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, the NIH/NHLBI National Research Service Award postdoctoral fellowship (T32HL007843), the Measey Foundation, and the Doris Duke Foundation. S.M.D. is supported by funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research (IK2-CX001780).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB of the University of Pennsylvania gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* co-last authors
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
