RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A cardiovascular disease polygenic risk score (CVD-PRS) can stratify individuals into different categories of cardiovascular risk, but whether the addition of a CVD-PRS to clinical risk scores improves the identification of individuals at increased risk in a real-world clinical setting is unknown. METHODS: The Genetics and the Vascular Health Check Study (GENVASC) was embedded within the UK National Health Service Health Check (NHSHC) programme which invites individuals between 40-74 years of age without known CVD to attend an assessment in a UK general practice where CVD risk factors are measured and a CVD risk score (QRISK2) is calculated. Between 2012-2020, 44,141 individuals (55.7% females, 15.8% non-white) who attended an NHSHC in 147 participating practices across two counties in England were recruited and followed. When 195 individuals (cases) had suffered a major CVD event (CVD death, myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularisation, stroke), 396 propensity-matched controls with a similar risk profile were identified, and a nested case-control genetic study undertaken to see if the addition of a CVD-PRS to QRISK2 in the form of an integrated risk tool (IRT) combined with QRISK2 would have identified more individuals at the time of their NHSHC as at high risk (QRISK2 10-year CVD risk of ≥10%), compared with QRISK2 alone. RESULTS: The distribution of the standardised CVD-PRS was significantly different in cases compared with controls (cases mean score .32; controls, -.18, P = 8.28×10-9). QRISK2 identified 61.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 54.3%-68.4%) of individuals who subsequently developed a major CVD event as being at high risk at their NHSHC, while the combination of QRISK2 and IRT identified 68.7% (95% CI: 61.7%-75.2%), a relative increase of 11.7% (P = 1×10-4). The odds ratio (OR) of being up-classified was 2.41 (95% CI: 1.03-5.64, P = .031) for cases compared with controls. In individuals aged 40-54 years, QRISK2 identified 26.0% (95% CI: 16.5%-37.6%) of those who developed a major CVD event, while the combination of QRISK2 and IRT identified 38.4% (95% CI: 27.2%-50.5%), indicating a stronger relative increase of 47.7% in the younger age group (P = .001). The combination of QRISK2 and IRT increased the proportion of additional cases identified similarly in women as in men, and in non-white ethnicities compared with white ethnicity. The findings were similar when the CVD-PRS was added to the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease pooled cohort equations (ASCVD-PCE) or SCORE2 clinical scores. CONCLUSIONS: In a clinical setting, the addition of genetic information to clinical risk assessment significantly improved the identification of individuals who went on to have a major CVD event as being at high risk, especially among younger individuals. The findings provide important real-world evidence of the potential value of implementing a CVD-PRS into health systems.
RESUMO
AIMS: The aim of the study was to assess the real-world feasibility, acceptability, and impact of an integrated risk tool for cardiovascular disease (CVD IRT, combining the standard QRISK®2 risk algorithm with a polygenic risk score), implemented within routine primary practice in the UK National Health Service. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Healthcare Evaluation of Absolute Risk Testing Study (NCT05294419) evaluated participants undergoing primary care health checks. Both QRISK2 and CVD IRT scores were returned to the healthcare providers (HCPs), who then communicated the results to participants. The primary outcome of the study was feasibility of CVD IRT implementation. Secondary outcomes included changes in CVD risk (QRISK2 vs. CVD IRT) and impact of the CVD IRT on clinical decision-making. A total of 832 eligible participants (median age 55 years, 62% females, 97.5% White ethnicity) were enrolled across 12 UK primary care practices. Cardiovascular disease IRT scores were obtained on 100% of the blood samples. Healthcare providers stated that the CVD IRT could be incorporated into routine primary care in a straightforward manner in 90.7% of reports. Participants stated they were 'likely' or 'very likely' to recommend the use of this test to their family or friends in 86.9% of reports. Participants stated that the test was personally useful (98.8%) and that the results were easy to understand (94.6%). When CVD IRT exceeded QRISK2, HCPs planned changes in management for 108/388 (27.8%) of participants and 47% (62/132) of participants with absolute risk score changes of >2%. CONCLUSION: Amongst HCPs and participants who agreed to the trial of genetic data for refinement of clinical risk prediction in primary care, we observed that CVD IRT implementation was feasible and well accepted. The CVD IRT results were associated with planned changes in prevention strategies.
When a standard cardiovascular risk tool, as currently used in National Health Service Health Checks, was expanded to include genetic risk information, it was well accepted by both participants and healthcare providers and generated impactful changes in planned clinical decision-making.Most participants found the test useful and easy to understand, and healthcare providers found it straightforward to use in most cases.When risk was increased by the addition of genetic information, this influenced planned management decisions.