Anna C F Lewis | PubMed Health

PubMed2026

Development and Validation of a Clinical Polygenic Risk Report in U.S.-Based Health Systems for 8 Cardiovascular Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRS) stratify inherited cardiovascular risk, but their path to clinical implementation remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop and validate integrated PRS for 8 cardiovascular conditions and outline a framework for their clinical reporting. METHODS: We analyzed genotype and clinical data from 245,394 All of Us Research Program participants. Publicly available PRS for 8 traits-coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes, venous thromboembolism (VTE), thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA), extreme hypertension, severe hypercholesterolemia, and elevated lipoprotein(a)-were combined using PRSmix, an elastic-net approach. Integrated PRS were externally validated in 53,306 Mass General Brigham Biobank participants using logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, and ancestry. RESULTS: Of 53,306 genotyped Mass General Brigham Biobank participants (55.6% women, mean age 53 ± 17 years), integrated PRS demonstrated robust discrimination and appropriate calibration across 8 cardiovascular traits. Comparing high genetic risk (top 10% of PRS distribution, or top 20% for rarer TAA and VTE) vs average risk (26th-75th percentiles, or 21st-80th percentiles for TAA and VTE) yielded ORs: coronary artery disease (3.7 [95% CI: 3.4-4.1]), type 2 diabetes (3.1 [95% CI: 2.8-3.3]), atrial fibrillation (3.0 [95% CI: 2.7-3.3]), VTE (1.9 [95% CI: 1.6-2.0]), TAA (1.7 [95% CI: 1.5-1.9]), hypertension (2.1 [95% CI: 1.8-2.3]), hypercholesterolemia (4.1 [95% CI: 3.7-4.5]), and lipoprotein(a) (41.0 [95% CI: 27.0-62.2]). Incorporating integrated PRS into clinical models improved risk classification, while prospective analyses confirmed significant associations with incident cardiovascular outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated PRS offer an implementable framework for genetic risk reporting, and are now available as a clinically orderable test. Broader prospective validation studies are needed to further establish clinical utility.

Humans↗

PubMed2022

Patient and provider perspectives on polygenic risk scores: implications for clinical reporting and utilization.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRS), which offer information about genomic risk for common diseases, have been proposed for clinical implementation. The ways in which PRS information may influence a patient's health trajectory depend on how both the patient and their primary care provider (PCP) interpret and act on PRS information. We aimed to probe patient and PCP responses to PRS clinical reporting choices METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews of both patients (N=25) and PCPs (N=21) exploring responses to mock PRS clinical reports of two different designs: binary and continuous representations of PRS. RESULTS: Many patients did not understand the numbers representing risk, with high numeracy patients being the exception. However, all the patients still understood a key takeaway that they should ask their PCP about actions to lower their disease risk. PCPs described a diverse range of heuristics they would use to interpret and act on PRS information. Three separate use cases for PRS emerged: to aid in gray-area clinical decision-making, to encourage patients to do what PCPs think patients should be doing anyway (such as exercising regularly), and to identify previously unrecognized high-risk patients. PCPs indicated that receiving "below average risk" information could be both beneficial and potentially harmful, depending on the use case. For "increased risk" patients, PCPs were favorable towards integrating PRS information into their practice, though some would only act in the presence of evidence-based guidelines. PCPs describe the report as more than a way to convey information, viewing it as something to structure the whole interaction with the patient. Both patients and PCPs preferred the continuous over the binary representation of PRS (23/25 and 17/21, respectively). We offer recommendations for the developers of PRS to consider for PRS clinical report design in the light of these patient and PCP viewpoints. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs saw PRS information as a natural extension of their current practice. The most pressing gap for PRS implementation is evidence for clinical utility. Careful clinical report design can help ensure that benefits are realized and harms are minimized.

Clinical Decision-Making↗