BACKGROUND:Clinical laboratory (lab) tests are used in clinical practice to diagnose, treat, and monitor disease conditions. Test results are stored in electronic health records (EHRs), and a growing number of EHRs are linked to patient DNA, offering unprecedented opportunities to query relationships between genetic risk for complex disease and quantitative physiological measurements collected on large populations. METHODS:A total of 3075 quantitative lab tests were extracted from Vanderbilt University Medical Center's (VUMC) EHR system and cleaned for population-level analysis according to our QualityLab protocol. Lab values extracted from BioVU were compared with previous population studies using heritability and genetic correlation analyses. We then tested the hypothesis that polygenic risk scores for biomarkers and complex disease are associated with biomarkers of disease extracted from the EHR. In a proof of concept analyses, we focused on lipids and coronary artery disease (CAD). We cleaned lab traits extracted from the EHR performed lab-wide association scans (LabWAS) of the lipids and CAD polygenic risk scores across 315 heritable lab tests then replicated the pipeline and analyses in the Massachusetts General Brigham Biobank. RESULTS:Heritability estimates of lipid values (after cleaning with QualityLab) were comparable to previous reports and polygenic scores for lipids were strongly associated with their referent lipid in a LabWAS. LabWAS of the polygenic score for CAD recapitulated canonical heart disease biomarker profiles including decreased HDL, increased pre-medication LDL, triglycerides, blood glucose, and glycated hemoglobin (HgbA1C) in European and African descent populations. Notably, many of these associations remained even after adjusting for the presence of cardiovascular disease and were replicated in the MGBB. CONCLUSIONS:Polygenic risk scores can be used to identify biomarkers of complex disease in large-scale EHR-based genomic analyses, providing new avenues for discovery of novel biomarkers and deeper understanding of disease trajectories in pre-symptomatic individuals. We present two methods and associated software, QualityLab and LabWAS, to clean and analyze EHR labs at scale and perform a Lab-Wide Association Scan.

A reliable, individualized, and dynamic surrogate of cardiovascular risk, synoptic for key biologic mechanisms, could shorten the path for drug development, enhance drug cost-effectiveness and improve patient outcomes. We used highly multiplexed proteomics to address these objectives, measuring about 5000 proteins in each of 32,130 archived plasma samples from 22,849 participants in nine clinical studies. We used machine learning to derive a 27-protein model predicting 4-year likelihood of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or death. The 27 proteins encompassed 10 biologic systems, and 12 were associated with relevant causal genetic traits. We independently validated results in 11,609 participants. Compared to a clinical model, the ratio of observed events in quintile 5 to quintile 1 was 6.7 for proteins versus 2.9 for the clinical model, AUCs (95% CI) were 0.73 (0.72 to 0.74) versus 0.64 (0.62 to 0.65), -statistics were 0.71 (0.69 to 0.72) versus 0.62 (0.60 to 0.63), and the net reclassification index was +0.43. Adding the clinical model to the proteins only improved discrimination metrics by 0.01 to 0.02. Event rates in four predefined protein risk categories were 5.6, 11.2, 20.0, and 43.4% within 4 years; median time to event was 1.71 years. Protein predictions were directionally concordant with changed outcomes. Adverse risks were predicted for aging, approaching an event, anthracycline chemotherapy, diabetes, smoking, rheumatoid arthritis, cancer history, cardiovascular disease, high systolic blood pressure, and lipids. Reduced risks were predicted for weight loss and exenatide. The 27-protein model has potential as a "universal" surrogate end point for cardiovascular risk.

Importance:Pre-heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (pre-HFpEF) is common and has no specific therapy aside from cardiovascular risk factor management. Objective:To investigate the hypothesis that sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan would reduce left atrial volume index using volumetric cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with pre-HFpEF. Design, Setting, and Participants:The Personalized Prospective Comparison of ARNI [angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor] With ARB [angiotensin-receptor blocker] in Patients With Natriuretic Peptide Elevation (PARABLE) trial was a prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial carried out over 18 months between April 2015 and June 2021. The study was conducted at a single outpatient cardiology center in Dublin, Ireland. Of 1460 patients in the STOP-HF program or outpatient cardiology clinics, 461 met initial criteria and were approached for inclusion. Of these, 323 were screened and 250 asymptomatic patients 40 years and older with hypertension or diabetes, elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) greater than 20 pg/mL or N-terminal pro-b-type natriuretic peptide greater than 100 pg/mL, left atrial volume index greater than 28 mL/m2, and preserved ejection fraction greater than 50% were included. Interventions:Patients were randomized to angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan titrated to 200 mg twice daily or matching angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan titrated to 160 mg twice daily. Main Outcomes and Measures:Maximal left atrial volume index and left ventricular end diastolic volume index, ambulatory pulse pressure, N-terminal pro-BNP, and adverse cardiovascular events. Results:Among the 250 participants in this study, the median (IQR) age was 72.0 (68.0-77.0) years; 154 participants (61.6%) were men and 96 (38.4%) were women. Most (n = 245 [98.0%]) had hypertension and 60 (24.0%) had type 2 diabetes. Maximal left atrial volume index was increased in patients assigned to receive sacubitril/valsartan (6.9 mL/m2; 95% CI, 0.0 to 13.7) vs valsartan (0.7 mL/m2; 95% CI, -6.3 to 7.7; P < .001) despite reduced markers of filling pressure in both groups. Changes in pulse pressure and N-terminal pro-BNP were lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group (-4.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, -7.2 to -1.21 and -17.7%; 95% CI, -36.9 to 7.4, respectively; P < .001) than the valsartan group (-1.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.1 to 1.7 and 9.4%; 95% CI, -15.6 to 4.9, respectively; P < .001). Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 6 patients (4.9%) assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 17 (13.3%) assigned to receive valsartan (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.89; adjusted P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance:In this trial of patients with pre-HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan treatment was associated with a greater increase in left atrial volume index and improved markers of cardiovascular risk compared to valsartan. More work is needed to understand the observed increased cardiac volumes and long-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with pre-HFpEF. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04687111.

AIMS:The 10-year risk of recurrent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events in patients with established ASCVD can be estimated with the Secondary Manifestations of ARTerial disease (SMART) risk score, and may help refine clinical management. To broaden generalizability across regions, we updated the existing tool (SMART2 risk score) and recalibrated it with regional incidence rates and assessed its performance in external populations. METHODS AND RESULTS:Individuals with coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, or abdominal aortic aneurysms were included from the Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort-SMART cohort [n = 8355; 1706 ASCVD events during a median follow-up of 8.2 years (interquartile range 4.2-12.5)] to derive a 10-year risk prediction model for recurrent ASCVD events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular mortality) using a Fine and Gray competing risk-adjusted model. The model was recalibrated to four regions across Europe, and to Asia (excluding Japan), Japan, Australia, North America, and Latin America using contemporary cohort data from each target region. External validation used data from seven cohorts [Clinical Practice Research Datalink, SWEDEHEART, the international REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry, Estonian Biobank, Spanish Biomarkers in Acute Coronary Syndrome and Biomarkers in Acute Myocardial Infarction (BACS/BAMI), the Norwegian COgnitive Impairment After STroke, and Bialystok PLUS/Polaspire] and included 369 044 individuals with established ASCVD of whom 62 807 experienced an ASCVD event. C-statistics ranged from 0.605 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.547-0.664] in BACS/BAMI to 0.772 (95% CI 0.659-0.886) in REACH Europe high-risk region. The clinical utility of the model was demonstrated across a range of clinically relevant treatment thresholds for intensified treatment options. CONCLUSION:The SMART2 risk score provides an updated, validated tool for the prediction of recurrent ASCVD events in patients with established ASCVD across European and non-European populations. The use of this tool could allow for a more personalized approach to secondary prevention based upon quantitative rather than qualitative estimates of residual risk.

BACKGROUND:Epidemiological studies have reported conflicting findings on the potential adverse effects of long-term antihypertensive medication use on cancer risk. Naturally occurring variation in genes encoding antihypertensive drug targets can be used as proxies for these targets to examine the effect of their long-term therapeutic inhibition on disease outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We performed a mendelian randomization analysis to examine the association between genetically proxied inhibition of 3 antihypertensive drug targets and risk of 4 common cancers (breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate). Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in ACE, ADRB1, and SLC12A3 associated (P < 5.0 × 10-8) with systolic blood pressure (SBP) in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were used to proxy inhibition of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), β-1 adrenergic receptor (ADRB1), and sodium-chloride symporter (NCC), respectively. Summary genetic association estimates for these SNPs were obtained from GWAS consortia for the following cancers: breast (122,977 cases, 105,974 controls), colorectal (58,221 cases, 67,694 controls), lung (29,266 cases, 56,450 controls), and prostate (79,148 cases, 61,106 controls). Replication analyses were performed in the FinnGen consortium (1,573 colorectal cancer cases, 120,006 controls). Cancer GWAS and FinnGen consortia data were restricted to individuals of European ancestry. Inverse-variance weighted random-effects models were used to examine associations between genetically proxied inhibition of these drug targets and risk of cancer. Multivariable mendelian randomization and colocalization analyses were employed to examine robustness of findings to violations of mendelian randomization assumptions. Genetically proxied ACE inhibition equivalent to a 1-mm Hg reduction in SBP was associated with increased odds of colorectal cancer (odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.22; P = 3.6 × 10-4). This finding was replicated in the FinnGen consortium (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.92; P = 0.035). There was little evidence of association of genetically proxied ACE inhibition with risk of breast cancer (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.02, P = 0.35), lung cancer (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.10; P = 0.93), or prostate cancer (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; P = 0.08). Genetically proxied inhibition of ADRB1 and NCC were not associated with risk of these cancers. The primary limitations of this analysis include the modest statistical power for analyses of drug targets in relation to some less common histological subtypes of cancers examined and the restriction of the majority of analyses to participants of European ancestry. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, we observed that genetically proxied long-term ACE inhibition was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, warranting comprehensive evaluation of the safety profiles of ACE inhibitors in clinical trials with adequate follow-up. There was little evidence to support associations across other drug target-cancer risk analyses, consistent with findings from short-term randomized controlled trials for these medications.

Importance:The use of sacubitril/valsartan is not endorsed by practice guidelines for use in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction because of limited clinical experience in this population. Objective:To compare treatment with sacubitril/valsartan treatment with valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association class IV symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants:A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted; a total of 335 patients with advanced heart failure were included. The trial began on March 2, 2017, and was stopped early on March 23, 2020, owing to COVID-19 risk. Intervention:Patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose, 200 mg twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures:The area under the curve (AUC) for the ratio of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with baseline measured through 24 weeks of therapy. Results:Of the 335 patients included in the analysis, 245 were men (73%); mean (SD) age was 59.4 (13.5) years. Seventy-two eligible patients (18%) were not able to tolerate sacubitril/valsartan, 100 mg/d, during the short run-in period, and 49 patients (29%) discontinued sacubitril/valsartan during the 24 weeks of the trial. The median NT-proBNP AUC for the valsartan treatment arm (n = 168) was 1.19 (IQR, 0.91-1.64), whereas the AUC for the sacubitril/valsartan treatment arm (n = 167) was 1.08 (IQR, 0.75-1.60). The estimated ratio of change in the NT-proBNP AUC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Compared with valsartan, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not improve the clinical composite of number of days alive, out of hospital, and free from heart failure events. Aside from a statistically significant increase in non-life-threatening hyperkalemia in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (28 [17%] vs 15 [9%]; P = .04), there were no observed safety concerns. Conclusions and Relevance:The findings of this trial showed that, in patients with chronic advanced heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction, there was no statistically significant difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan with respect to reducing NT-proBNP levels. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816736.