Atrial fibrillation without comorbidities: Prevalence, incidence and prognosis (from the Framingham Heart Study).

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of atrial fibrillation (AF) without comorbidities, known as 'lone AF', is uncertain. Although it has been considered a benign condition, we hypothesized that it confers a worse prognosis compared with a matched sample without AF. METHODS: We described the proportion of AF without comorbidities (clinical, subclinical cardiovascular disease and triggers) among the entire AF sample in Framingham Heart Study (FHS). We compared AF without comorbidities with typical AF, and age-, sex- and cohort-matched individuals without AF, using Cox proportional hazards analysis in relation to combined cardiovascular events (stroke, heart failure, myocardial infarction), and mortality. RESULTS: Of 10,311 FHS participants, 1,961 were diagnosed with incident AF, among which 173 individuals had AF without comorbidities (47% women, mean age 71±12 years). AF without comorbidities had a prevalence of 1.7% of the entire cohort, and an annual incidence of 0.5 per 1000 person-years. During a median follow-up of 9.7 years after initial AF, 137 individuals with AF without comorbidities (79.2%) died and 141 individuals developed cardiovascular events (81.5%). AF without comorbidities had significantly lower mortality (HR 0.67, 95%CI 0.55-0.81, P < .001) and total cardiovascular events (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.55-0.80, P < .001) compared with typical AF. However, mortality (HR1.43, 95% CI 1.18-1.75, P < .001) and risk of total cardiovascular events (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.39-2.16, P < .001) were higher than age-, sex-, and cohort-matched individuals without AF. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of cardiovascular outcomes and mortality among individuals with AF without comorbidities is lower than typical AF, but is significantly elevated compared with matched individuals without AF.

Novel Polygenic Risk Score and Established Clinical Risk Factors for Risk Estimation of Aortic Stenosis.

Importance: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have proven to be as strong as or stronger than established clinical risk factors for many cardiovascular phenotypes. Whether this is true for aortic stenosis remains unknown. Objective: To develop a novel aortic stenosis PRS and compare its aortic stenosis risk estimation to established clinical risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from the Million Veteran Program (MVP; 2011-2020), UK Biobank (2006-2010), and 6 Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trials, including DECLARE-TIMI 58 (2013-2018), FOURIER (TIMI 59; 2013-2017), PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (2010-2014), SAVOR-TIMI 53 (2010-2013), SOLID-TIMI 52 (2009-2014), and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (2008-2013), which were a mix of population-based and randomized clinical trials. Individuals from UK Biobank and the MVP meeting a previously validated case/control definition for aortic stenosis were included. All individuals from TIMI trials were included unless they had a documented preexisting aortic valve replacement. Analysis took place from January 2022 to December 2023. Exposures: PRS for aortic stenosis (developed using data from MVP and validated in UK Biobank) and other previously validated cardiovascular PRSs, defined either as a continuous variable or as low (bottom 20%), intermediate, and high (top 20%), and clinical risk factors. Main Outcomes: Aortic stenosis (defined using International Classification of Diseases or Current Procedural Terminology codes in UK Biobank and MVP or safety event data in the TIMI trials). Results: The median (IQR) age in MVP was 67 (57-73) years, and 135 140 of 147 104 participants (92%) were male. The median (IQR) age in the TIMI trials was 66 (54-78) years, and 45 524 of 59 866 participants (71%) were male. The best aortic stenosis PRS incorporated 5 170 041 single-nucleotide variants and was associated with aortic stenosis in both the MVP testing sample (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.37-1.45 per 1 SD PRS; P = 4.6 × 10-116) and TIMI trials (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.27-1.62 per 1 SD PRS; P = 3.2 × 10-9). Among genetic and clinical risk factors, the aortic stenosis PRS performed comparably to most risk factors besides age, and within a given age range, the combination of clinical and genetic risk factors was additive, providing a 3- to 4-fold increased gradient of risk of aortic stenosis. However, the addition of the aortic stenosis PRS to a model including clinical risk factors only improved risk discrimination of aortic stenosis by 0.01 to 0.02 (C index in MVP: 0.78 with clinical risk factors, 0.79 with risk factors and aortic stenosis PRS; C index in TIMI: 0.71 with clinical risk factors, 0.73 with risk factors and aortic stenosis PRS). Conclusions: This study developed and validated 1 of the first aortic stenosis PRSs. While aortic stenosis genetic risk was independent from clinical risk factors and performed comparably to all other risk factors besides age, genetic risk resulted in only a small improvement in overall aortic stenosis risk discrimination beyond age and clinical risk factors. This work sets the stage for further development of an aortic stenosis PRS.

Predictive Utility of a Coronary Artery Disease Polygenic Risk Score in Primary Prevention.

Importance: The clinical utility of polygenic risk scores (PRS) for coronary artery disease (CAD) has not yet been established. Objective: To investigate the ability of a CAD PRS to potentially guide statin initiation in primary prevention after accounting for age and clinical risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a longitudinal cohort study with enrollment starting on January 1, 2006, and ending on December 31, 2010, with data updated to mid-2021, using data from the UK Biobank, a long-term population study of UK citizens. A replication analysis was performed in Biobank Japan. The analysis included all patients without a history of CAD and who were not taking lipid-lowering therapy. Data were analyzed from January 1 to June 30, 2022. Exposures: Polygenic risk for CAD was defined as low (bottom 20%), intermediate, and high (top 20%) using a CAD PRS including 241 genome-wide significant single-nucleotide variations (SNVs). The pooled cohort equations were used to estimate 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk and classify individuals as low (<5%), borderline (5-<7.5%), intermediate (7.5-<20%), or high risk (≥20%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Myocardial infarction (MI) and ASCVD events (defined as incident clinical CAD [including MI], stroke, or CV death). Results: A total of 330 201 patients (median [IQR] age, 57 [40-74] years; 189 107 female individuals [57%]) were included from the UK Biobank. Over the 10-year follow-up, 4454 individuals had an MI. The CAD PRS was significantly associated with the risk of MI in all age groups but had significantly stronger risk prediction at younger ages (age <50 years: hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD of PRS, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.56-1.89; age 50-60 years: HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.38-1.53; age >60 years: HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.37-1.48; P for interaction <.001). In patients younger than 50 years, those with high PRS had a 3- to 4-fold increased associated risk of MI compared with those in the low PRS category. A significant interaction between CAD PRS and age was replicated in Biobank Japan. When CAD PRS testing was added to the clinical ASCVD risk score in individuals younger than 50 years, 591 of 4373 patients (20%) with borderline risk were risk stratified into intermediate risk, warranting initiation of statin therapy and 3198 of 7477 patients (20%) with both borderline or intermediate risk were stratified as low risk, thus not warranting therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that the predictive ability of a CAD PRS was greater in younger individuals and can be used to better identify patients with borderline and intermediate clinical risk who should initiate statin therapy.

Multi-site Investigation of Genetic Determinants of Warfarin Dose Variability in Latinos.

We conducted a multi-site investigation of genetic determinants of warfarin dose variability in Latinos from the U.S. and Brazil. Patients from four institutions in the United States (n = 411) and Brazil (n = 663) were genotyped for VKORC1 c.-1639G> A, common CYP2C9 variants, CYP4F2*3, and NQO1*2. Multiple regression analysis was used in the U.S. cohort to test the association between warfarin dose and genotype, adjusting for clinical factors, with further testing in an independent cohort of Brazilians. In the U.S. cohort, VKORC1 and CYP2C9 variants were associated with lower warfarin dose (ß = -0.29, P < 2.0 × 10-16 ; ß = -0.21, P = 4.7 × 10-7 , respectively) whereas CYP4F2 and NQO1 variants were associated with higher dose (ß = 0.10, P = 2 × 10-4 ; ß = 0.10, P = 0.01, respectively). Associations with VKORC1 (ß = -0.14, P = 2.0 × 10-16 ), CYP2C9 (ß = -0.07, P = 5.6 × 10-10 ), and CYP4F2 (ß = 0.03, P = 3 × 10-3 ), but not NQO1*2 (ß = 0.01, P = 0.30), were replicated in the Brazilians, explaining 43-46% of warfarin dose variability among the cohorts from the U.S. and Brazil, respectively. We identified genetic associations with warfarin dose requirements in the largest cohort of ancestrally diverse, warfarin-treated Latinos from the United States and Brazil to date. We confirmed the association of variants in VKORC1, CYP2C9, and CYP4F2 with warfarin dose in Latinos from the United States and Brazil.

SUPPORT-AF: Piloting a Multi-Faceted, Electronic Medical Record-Based Intervention to Improve Prescription of Anticoagulation.

Background Only 50% of eligible atrial fibrillation ( AF ) patients receive anticoagulation ( AC ). Feasibility and effectiveness of electronic medical record (EMR)-based interventions to profile and raise provider AC percentage is poorly understood. The SUPPORT-AF (Supporting Use of AC Through Provider Profiling of Oral AC Therapy for AF) study aims to improve rates of adherence to AC guidelines by developing and delivering supportive tools based on the EMR to providers treating patients with AF. Methods and Results We emailed cardiologists and community-based primary care providers affiliated with our institution reports of their AC percentage relative to peers. We also sent an electronic medical record-based message to these providers the day before an appointment with an atrial fibrillation patient who was eligible but not receiving AC . The electronic medical record message asked the provider to discuss AC with the patient if he or she deemed it appropriate. To assess feasibility, we tracked provider review of our correspondence. We also tracked the change in AC for intervention providers relative to alternate primary care providers not receiving our intervention. We identified 3786, 1054, and 566 patients cared for by 49 cardiology providers, 90 community-based primary care providers, and 88 control providers, respectively. At baseline, the percentage of AC was 71.3%, 63.5%, and 58.3% for these 3 respective groups. Intervention providers reviewed our e-mails and electronic medical record messages 45% and 96% of the time, respectively. For providers responding, patient refusal was the most common reason for patients not being on AC (21%) followed by high bleeding risk (19%). At follow-up 10 weeks later, change in AC was no different for either cardiology or community-based primary care providers relative to controls (0.2% lower and 0.01% higher, respectively). Conclusions Our intervention profiling AC was feasible, but not sufficient to increase AC in our population.