deCODE genetics/Amgen, Inc, Reykjavik, Iceland.
University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
JAMA. 2023 Aug 22;330(8):725-735. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.13258.
Whether protein risk scores derived from a single plasma sample could be useful for risk assessment for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), in conjunction with clinical risk factors and polygenic risk scores, is uncertain.
To develop protein risk scores for ASCVD risk prediction and compare them to clinical risk factors and polygenic risk scores in primary and secondary event populations.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The primary analysis was a retrospective study of primary events among 13 540 individuals in Iceland (aged 40-75 years) with proteomics data and no history of major ASCVD events at recruitment (study duration, August 23, 2000 until October 26, 2006; follow-up through 2018). We also analyzed a secondary event population from a randomized, double-blind lipid-lowering clinical trial (2013-2016), consisting of individuals with stable ASCVD receiving statin therapy and for whom proteomic data were available for 6791 individuals.
Protein risk scores (based on 4963 plasma protein levels and developed in a training set in the primary event population); polygenic risk scores for coronary artery disease and stroke; and clinical risk factors that included age, sex, statin use, hypertension treatment, type 2 diabetes, body mass index, and smoking status at the time of plasma sampling.
Outcomes were composites of myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary heart disease death or cardiovascular death. Performance was evaluated using Cox survival models and measures of discrimination and reclassification that accounted for the competing risk of non-ASCVD death.
In the primary event population test set (4018 individuals [59.0% women]; 465 events; median follow-up, 15.8 years), the protein risk score had a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.93 per SD (95% CI, 1.75 to 2.13). Addition of protein risk score and polygenic risk scores significantly increased the C index when added to a clinical risk factor model (C index change, 0.022 [95% CI, 0.007 to 0.038]). Addition of the protein risk score alone to a clinical risk factor model also led to a significantly increased C index (difference, 0.014 [95% CI, 0.002 to 0.028]). Among White individuals in the secondary event population (6307 participants; 432 events; median follow-up, 2.2 years), the protein risk score had an HR of 1.62 per SD (95% CI, 1.48 to 1.79) and significantly increased C index when added to a clinical risk factor model (C index change, 0.026 [95% CI, 0.011 to 0.042]). The protein risk score was significantly associated with major adverse cardiovascular events among individuals of African and Asian ancestries in the secondary event population.
A protein risk score was significantly associated with ASCVD events in primary and secondary event populations. When added to clinical risk factors, the protein risk score and polygenic risk score both provided statistically significant but modest improvement in discrimination.
基于单一血浆样本的蛋白质风险评分是否可用于联合临床风险因素和多基因风险评分来评估动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病(ASCVD)风险尚不确定。
开发 ASCVD 风险预测的蛋白质风险评分,并在初级和次级事件人群中与临床风险因素和多基因风险评分进行比较。
设计、地点和参与者:主要分析是对冰岛 13540 名年龄在 40-75 岁、无重大 ASCVD 事件史的个体(研究期间:2000 年 8 月 23 日至 2006 年 10 月 26 日;随访至 2018 年)的原发性事件进行的回顾性研究。我们还分析了一项随机、双盲降脂临床试验(2013-2016 年)的二级事件人群,该研究纳入了接受他汀类药物治疗且稳定型 ASCVD 的个体,并为其中 6791 名个体提供了蛋白质组学数据。
蛋白质风险评分(基于 4963 种血浆蛋白水平,并在原发性事件人群的训练集中开发);用于冠状动脉疾病和中风的多基因风险评分;以及在采集血浆样本时的年龄、性别、他汀类药物使用、高血压治疗、2 型糖尿病、体重指数和吸烟状态等临床风险因素。
结局是心肌梗死、中风和冠心病死亡或心血管死亡的综合指标。使用 Cox 生存模型和考虑非 ASCVD 死亡竞争风险的区分和重新分类的措施来评估性能。
在原发性事件人群测试集中(4018 名个体[59.0%为女性];465 例事件;中位随访时间为 15.8 年),蛋白质风险评分每标准差的风险比(HR)为 1.93(95%CI,1.75 至 2.13)。在加入临床风险因素模型后,蛋白质风险评分和多基因风险评分的加入显著提高了 C 指数(指数变化,0.022 [95%CI,0.007 至 0.038])。仅将蛋白质风险评分加入临床风险因素模型也显著提高了 C 指数(差异,0.014 [95%CI,0.002 至 0.028])。在次级事件人群中的白种人(6307 名参与者;432 例事件;中位随访时间 2.2 年)中,蛋白质风险评分每标准差的 HR 为 1.62(95%CI,1.48 至 1.79),并且在加入临床风险因素模型后显著提高了 C 指数(指数变化,0.026 [95%CI,0.011 至 0.042])。在次级事件人群中具有非洲和亚洲血统的个体中,蛋白质风险评分与主要不良心血管事件显著相关。
蛋白质风险评分与原发性和继发性事件人群中的 ASCVD 事件显著相关。当与临床风险因素结合使用时,蛋白质风险评分和多基因风险评分均在区分度上提供了具有统计学意义但适度的改善。