26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Association of Vascular Risk Factors and Genetic Factors With Penetrance of Variants Causing Monogenic Stroke

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This cohort study examines data from UK Biobank participants who had whole-exome sequencing to determine the frequency of pathogenic variants in the 3 most common monogenic cerebral small vessel diseases and their associations with prevalent and incident stroke and dementia.

          Key Points

          Question

          What factors are associated with penetrance of variants in monogenic cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD)?

          Findings

          In this population-based cohort study of 454 756 individuals, NOTCH3, HTRA1, and COL4A1/2 variants causing monogenic cSVD were associated with increased stroke and dementia risk. Cardiovascular risk factors were found to be associated with penetrance of these variants.

          Meaning

          The results of this cohort study support the hypotheses that cardiovascular risk factor control may improve disease prognosis in individuals with monogenic cSVD variants and that identifying individuals early in life before symptom onset may help reduce stroke and dementia risk.

          Abstract

          Importance

          It is uncertain whether typical variants causing monogenic stroke are associated with cerebrovascular disease in the general population and why the phenotype of these variants varies so widely.

          Objective

          To determine the frequency of pathogenic variants in the 3 most common monogenic cerebral small vessel diseases (cSVD) and their associations with prevalent and incident stroke and dementia.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cohort study is a multicenter population-based study of data from UK Biobank participants recruited in 2006 through 2010, with the latest follow-up in September 2021. A total of 9.2 million individuals aged 40 to 69 years who lived in the United Kingdom were invited to join UK Biobank, of whom 5.5% participated in the baseline assessment. Participants eligible for our study (n = 454 756, excluding 48 569 with incomplete data) had whole-exome sequencing and available data pertaining to lacunar stroke-related diseases, namely stroke, dementia, migraine, and epilepsy.

          Exposures

          NOTCH3, HTRA1, and COL4A1/2 pathogenic variants in monogenic stroke; Framingham cardiovascular risk; and ischemic stroke polygenic risk.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Primary outcomes were prevalent and incident stroke and dementia. Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, exome sequencing batch, and top 10 genetic principal components.

          Results

          Of the 454 756 participants (208 027 [45.8%] men; mean [SD] age, 56.5 [8.1] years), 973 participants carried NOTCH3 variants, 546 carried HTRA1 variants, and 336 carried COL4A1/2 variants. Variant carriers were at least 66% more likely to have had stroke. NOTCH3 carriers had increased vascular dementia risk (OR, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.11-8.74), HTRA1 carriers an increased all-cause dementia risk (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.28-3.41), and COL4A1/2 carriers an increased intracerebral hemorrhage risk (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.34-7.53). NOTCH3 variants were associated with incident ischemic stroke and vascular dementia. NOTCH3 and HTRA1 variants were associated with magnetic resonance imaging markers of cSVD. Cardiovascular risk burden was associated with increased stroke risk in NOTCH3 and HTRA1 carriers. Variant location was also associated with risk.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this cohort study, pathogenic variants associated with rare monogenic stroke were more common than expected in the general population and associated with stroke and dementia. Cardiovascular risk burden is associated with the penetrance of such variants. Our results support the hypothesis that cardiovascular risk factor control may improve disease prognosis in individuals with monogenic cSVD variants. This lays the foundation for future studies to evaluate the effect of early identification before symptom onset on mitigating stroke and dementia risk.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation of Sequence Variants: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology

          The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) previously developed guidance for the interpretation of sequence variants. 1 In the past decade, sequencing technology has evolved rapidly with the advent of high-throughput next generation sequencing. By adopting and leveraging next generation sequencing, clinical laboratories are now performing an ever increasing catalogue of genetic testing spanning genotyping, single genes, gene panels, exomes, genomes, transcriptomes and epigenetic assays for genetic disorders. By virtue of increased complexity, this paradigm shift in genetic testing has been accompanied by new challenges in sequence interpretation. In this context, the ACMG convened a workgroup in 2013 comprised of representatives from the ACMG, the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) to revisit and revise the standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. The group consisted of clinical laboratory directors and clinicians. This report represents expert opinion of the workgroup with input from ACMG, AMP and CAP stakeholders. These recommendations primarily apply to the breadth of genetic tests used in clinical laboratories including genotyping, single genes, panels, exomes and genomes. This report recommends the use of specific standard terminology: ‘pathogenic’, ‘likely pathogenic’, ‘uncertain significance’, ‘likely benign’, and ‘benign’ to describe variants identified in Mendelian disorders. Moreover, this recommendation describes a process for classification of variants into these five categories based on criteria using typical types of variant evidence (e.g. population data, computational data, functional data, segregation data, etc.). Because of the increased complexity of analysis and interpretation of clinical genetic testing described in this report, the ACMG strongly recommends that clinical molecular genetic testing should be performed in a CLIA-approved laboratory with results interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or molecular genetic pathologist or equivalent.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

            Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              UK Biobank: An Open Access Resource for Identifying the Causes of a Wide Range of Complex Diseases of Middle and Old Age

              Cathie Sudlow and colleagues describe the UK Biobank, a large population-based prospective study, established to allow investigation of the genetic and non-genetic determinants of the diseases of middle and old age.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Neurol
                JAMA Neurol
                JAMA Neurology
                American Medical Association
                2168-6149
                2168-6157
                27 October 2022
                December 2022
                27 October 2022
                : 79
                : 12
                : 1303-1311
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Stroke Research Group, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: September 9, 2022.
                Published Online: October 27, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.3832
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Cho BPH et al. JAMA Neurology.
                Corresponding Author: Hugh S. Markus, DM, University of Cambridge, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Neurology Unit, R3, Box 83, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom ( hsm32@ 123456medschl.cam.ac.uk ).
                Author Contributions: Mr Cho and Dr Markus had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Bell and Markus contributed equally.
                Concept and design: Cho, Bell, Markus.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Cho, Harshfield, Al-Thani, Tozer, Bell.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Cho, Tozer, Markus.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Cho, Harshfield, Al-Thani, Tozer, Bell.
                Statistical analysis: Cho, Tozer, Bell.
                Obtained funding: Harshfield, Markus.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Cho, Harshfield, Tozer, Bell, Markus.
                Supervision: Harshfield, Bell, Markus.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Mr Cho reported grants from British Heart Foundation (RG/4/32218) during the conduct of the study. Dr Harshfield reported grants from Cambridge British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence during the conduct of the study. Dr Tozer reported grants from the Medical Research Council outside the submitted work. Dr Bell reported grants from the British Heart Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr Markus reported grants from British Heart Foundation during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This research was funded by the British Heart Foundation via the Cambridge British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence (PhD studentship awarded to Mr Cho and fellowship awarded to Dr Harshfield; RE/18/1/34212) and a British Heart Foundation program grant (RG/4/32218). Infrastructural support was provided by the Cambridge University Hospitals National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014). Dr Markus is supported by an NIHR Senior Investigator Award.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health and Care Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.
                Meeting Presentation: This study was presented at the World Stroke Congress 2022; October 28, 2022; Singapore.
                Additional Contributions: We thank the UK Biobank and its participants who provided biological samples and data for this analysis.
                Additional Information: Data are available in a public, open access repository. Data from UK Biobank ( https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/) are available to bona fide researchers on application. This study was performed under UK Biobank application number 36509.
                Article
                noi220071
                10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.3832
                9614680
                36300346
                6852354a-8bcf-4b86-9135-85e1c34bf2e2
                Copyright 2022 Cho BPH et al. JAMA Neurology.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 13 June 2022
                : 9 September 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online First
                Comments

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content127

                Cited by18

                Most referenced authors1,550