Biomedical subjects

Elizabeth W Karlson

Publications and source records attributed to Elizabeth W Karlson.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Obesity Polygenic Risk and Healthy Lifestyle Interactions on Weight Trajectories in Women and Men.

BACKGROUND: Genetics and environmental factors contribute to obesity risk, but the extent to which healthy behaviors can offset genetic susceptibility remains unclear. We examined the interaction between obesity polygenic risk and a composite healthy lifestyle score on body mass index (BMI) trajectories in women and men. METHODS: We analyzed 13 780 women from the Nurses' Health Study and 8242 men from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, all of European ancestry and free of major chronic disease at baseline. The lifestyle score comprised American Heart Association Essential 8 components (nonsmoking, physical activity, healthy eating, adequate sleep) plus moderate alcohol intake, modeled as a time-varying variable. A genome-wide polygenic score for BMI was derived from genome-wide association study. Adjusted linear mixed-effects models estimated associations and interactions on biennial BMI measures over up to 26 years. RESULTS: Each SD increase in the polygenic score was associated with 1.80 kg/m2 (95% CI, 1.72-1.87) and 1.12 kg/m2 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19) higher BMI in women and men, respectively. Significant interactions between the polygenic score and healthy lifestyle score (both P<0.05) showed a dose-response attenuation of the genetic effects with healthier lifestyles. Comparing the healthiest with the least healthy lifestyle groups, genetic effects on BMI were 35% lower in women and 28% lower in men. In sensitivity analyses, higher diet quality and physical activity consistently attenuated genetic associations in both cohorts, whereas current smoking showed similar effects in women only. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to a healthier lifestyle attenuated the association between obesity polygenic risk and BMI in a dose-response manner.

Humans↗

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↗

PubMed2026

Polygenic Risk Based Detection and Treatment of Subclinical Coronary Atherosclerosis in the PROACT Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) polygenic risk scores (PRS) may identify individuals at elevated genetic risk "flying under the radar" in contemporary practice. The aims of the PROACT (Polygenic Risk Based Detection and Treatment of Subclinical Coronary Atherosclerosis) trials are to prospectively identify these individuals, quantify subclinical coronary plaque, and slow its progression with pharmacologic interventions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to report interim feasibility and implementation findings from PROACT, a genotype-first, biobank-enabled trial, characterizing eligibility yield, callback engagement, and subclinical coronary atherosclerosis on coronary computed tomographic angiography among individuals with high CAD PRS. METHODS: Within a hospital-based biobank, adults 40 to 75 years of age with high CAD PRS, without cardiovascular disease, and not on lipid-lowering therapy were invited. The authors characterize 2,495 eligible individuals with high CAD PRS, report on the feasibility and early operational outcomes of a genotype-first callback strategy for a clinical trial in the first 1,314 invited, and describe plaque prevalence by age and sex in the first 204 participants using coronary computed tomographic angiography. RESULTS: Among 64,092 genotyped participants, 2,495 (3.9%) were eligible and had high CAD PRS despite low clinical risk (median 10-year pooled cohort equations risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease 3%; Q1-Q3: 1%-8%). Recruitment showed high engagement: among 1,314 invited individuals, 283 (21.5%) opted in, and 204 (15.5%) completed baseline imaging. Compared with participants who did not opt in, those who opted in had higher specialty care engagement and lived closer to the study site. Analysis of the first 204 participants enrolled by January 31, 2025 (mean age 56.3 ± 8.5 years, 69% women), showed that despite the low clinical risk and favorable cardiovascular health (mean Life's Essential 8 score 73.3 ± 11.5 vs the U.S. average of ∼65), one-half the participants (102 of 204) had subclinical plaque. Subclinical plaque prevalence was 76.2% in men and 38.3% in women and was high across age groups. CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory findings highlight the feasibility of implementing genotype-first recruitment for prevention trials and reveal a large proportion of "silent" high-genetic risk individuals with subclinical plaque for whom pharmacotherapy could be beneficial but who remain undetected by standard clinical assessments. (Polygenic Risk Based Detection of Subclinical Coronary Atherosclerosis and Change in Cardiovascular Health [PROACT 1], NCT05819814; Polygenic Risk Based Detection of Subclinical Coronary Atherosclerosis and Intervention With Statin and Colchicine [PROACT 2], NCT05850091).

Adult↗

PubMed2025

Covering medical care costs for participants in the eMERGE Network: Challenges for equity and implementation.

PURPOSE: To investigate the complexities of covering study-recommended medical care costs for individuals (in order to prevent lack of adherence due to financial reasons), which have received little attention. METHODS: We explored the deliberations, decisions, and challenges faced by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network during the implementation of a genomic research project recommending clinical care based on high-risk results defined largely by polygenic risk scores. Two surveys were disseminated to eMERGE sites: to identify preferences about payment for specific care recommendations (survey 1) and to understand the operational processes of covering medical care costs (survey 2). RESULTS: Paying for a subset of care recommendations for the funded study duration was identified as the most feasible approach for covering medical care costs for participants who received high-risk genomic results. Each eMERGE site, by necessity, used diverse approaches to pay for medical care costs. CONCLUSION: eMERGE researchers balanced competing concerns about bias, equity, study design, regulatory compliance, and cost in designing a unified approach to cover some of the recommended medical care costs in the study. Many implementation challenges were encountered. Findings can inform researchers and regulatory bodies about the implications and complications of covering medical care costs in translational research studies focused on prevention.

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↗

PubMed2022

Concordance of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Results during a Period of Low Prevalence.

Accurate, highly specific immunoassays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to evaluate seroprevalence. This study investigated the concordance of results across four immunoassays targeting different antigens for sera collected at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the United States. Specimens from All of Us participants contributed between January and March 2020 were tested using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG (immunoglobulin G) assay (Abbott) and the EuroImmun SARS-CoV-2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (EI). Participants with discordant results, participants with concordant positive results, and a subset of concordant negative results by Abbott and EI were also tested using the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 (IgG) test (Roche) and the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Vitros anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test (Ortho). The agreement and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for paired assay combinations. SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were quantified for specimens with at least two positive results across four immunoassays. Among the 24,079 participants, the percent agreement for the Abbott and EI assays was 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 98.7%, 99%). Of the 490 participants who were also tested by Ortho and Roche, the probability-weighted percentage of agreement (95% confidence interval) between Ortho and Roche was 98.4% (97.9%, 98.9%), that between EI and Ortho was 98.5% (92.9%, 99.9%), that between Abbott and Roche was 98.9% (90.3%, 100.0%), that between EI and Roche was 98.9% (98.6%, 100.0%), and that between Abbott and Ortho was 98.4% (91.2%, 100.0%). Among the 32 participants who were positive by at least 2 immunoassays, 21 had quantifiable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations by research assays. The results across immunoassays revealed concordance during a period of low prevalence. However, the frequency of false positivity during a period of low prevalence supports the use of two sequentially performed tests for unvaccinated individuals who are seropositive by the first test. IMPORTANCE What is the agreement of commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) assays during a time of low coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevalence and no vaccine availability? Serological tests produced concordant results in a time of low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and no vaccine availability, driven largely by the proportion of samples that were negative by two immunoassays. The CDC recommends two sequential tests for positivity for future pandemic preparedness. In a subset analysis, quantified antinucleocapsid and antispike SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies do not suggest the need to specify the antigen targets of the sequential assays in the CDC's recommendation because false positivity varied as much between assays targeting the same antigen as it did between assays targeting different antigens.

Humans↗