Back to Search Start Over

Relative contributions of family history and a polygenic risk score on COPD and related outcomes: COPDGene and ECLIPSE studies.

Authors :
Moll M
Lutz SM
Ghosh AJ
Sakornsakolpat P
Hersh CP
Beaty TH
Dudbridge F
Tobin MD
Mittleman MA
Silverman EK
Hobbs BD
Cho MH
Source :
BMJ open respiratory research [BMJ Open Respir Res] 2020 Nov; Vol. 7 (1).
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

Introduction: Family history is a risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We previously developed a COPD risk score from genome-wide genetic markers (Polygenic Risk Score, PRS). Whether the PRS and family history provide complementary or redundant information for predicting COPD and related outcomes is unknown.<br />Methods: We assessed the predictive capacity of family history and PRS on COPD and COPD-related outcomes in non-Hispanic white (NHW) and African American (AA) subjects from COPDGene and ECLIPSE studies. We also performed interaction and mediation analyses.<br />Results: In COPDGene, family history and PRS were significantly associated with COPD in a single model (P <subscript>FamHx</subscript> <0.0001; P <subscript>PRS</subscript> <0.0001). Similar trends were seen in ECLIPSE. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for a model containing family history and PRS was significantly higher than a model with PRS (p=0.00035) in NHWs and a model with family history (p<0.0001) alone in NHWs and AAs. Both family history and PRS were significantly associated with measures of quantitative emphysema and airway thickness. There was a weakly positive interaction between family history and the PRS under the additive, but not multiplicative scale in NHWs (relative excess risk due to interaction=0.48, p=0.04). Mediation analyses found that a significant proportion of the effect of family history on COPD was mediated through PRS in NHWs (16.5%, 95% CI 9.4% to 24.3%), but not AAs.<br />Conclusion: Family history and the PRS provide complementary information for predicting COPD and related outcomes. Future studies can address the impact of obtaining both measures in clinical practice.<br />Competing Interests: Competing interests: EKS received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer. MHC has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer, consulting fees from Genentech and AstraZeneca, and speaking fees from Illumina. CPH reports grant support from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Bayer and Vertex, outside of this study. MDT receives grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Orion.<br /> (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
2052-4439
Volume :
7
Issue :
1
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
BMJ open respiratory research
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
33239407
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000755