Multi-Ancestry Polygenic Risk Score for Coronary Heart Disease Based on an Ancestrally Diverse Genome-Wide Association Study and Population-Specific Optimization
Johanna L. Smith, Catherine Tcheandjieu, Ozan Dikilitas, Kruthika Iyer, Kazuo Miyazawa, Austin T. Hilliard, Julie A. Lynch, Jerome I. Rotter, Yii‐Der Ida Chen, Wayne Huey‐Herng Sheu, Kyong‐Mi Chang, Stavroula Kanoni, Philip S. Tsao, Kaoru Ito, Matthew Kosel, Shoa L. Clarke, Daniel J. Schaid, Themistocles L. Assimes, Iftikhar J. Kullo
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Predictive performance of polygenic risk scores (PRS) varies across populations. To facilitate equitable clinical use, we developed PRS for coronary heart disease (CHD; PRS CHD ) for 5 genetic ancestry groups. METHODS: We derived ancestry-specific and multi-ancestry PRS CHD based on pruning and thresholding (PRS PT ) and ancestry-based continuous shrinkage priors (PRS CSx ) applied to summary statistics from the largest multi-ancestry genome-wide association study meta-analysis for CHD to date, including 1.1 million participants from 5 major genetic ancestry groups. Following training and optimization in the Million Veteran Program, we evaluated the best-performing PRS CHD in 176,988 individuals across 9 diverse cohorts. RESULTS: Multi-ancestry PRS PT and PRS CSx outperformed ancestry-specific PRS PT and PRS CSx across a range of tuning values. Two best-performing multi-ancestry PRS CHD (ie, PRS PTmult and PRS CSxmult ) and 1 ancestry-specific (PRS CSxEUR ) were taken forward for validation. PRS PTmult demonstrated the strongest association with CHD in individuals of South Asian ancestry and European ancestry (odds ratio per 1 SD [95% CI, 2.75 [2.41–3.14], 1.65 [1.59–1.72]), followed by East Asian ancestry (1.56 [1.50–1.61]), Hispanic/Latino ancestry (1.38 [1.24–1.54]), and African ancestry (1.16 [1.11–1.21]). PRS CSxmult showed the strongest associations in South Asian ancestry (2.67 [2.38–3.00]) and European ancestry (1.65 [1.59–1.71]), lower in East Asian ancestry (1.59 [1.54–1.64]), Hispanic/Latino ancestry (1.51 [1.35–1.69]), and the lowest in African ancestry (1.20 [1.15–1.26]). CONCLUSIONS: The use of summary statistics from a large multi-ancestry genome-wide meta-analysis improved the performance of PRS CHD in most ancestry groups compared with single-ancestry methods. Despite the use of one of the largest and most diverse sets of training and validation cohorts to date, improvement of predictive performance was limited in African ancestry. This highlights the need for larger genome-wide association study datasets of underrepresented populations to enhance the performance of PRS CHD .