Next Article in Journal
A Novel 13q12 Microdeletion Associated with Familial Syndromic Corneal Opacification
Previous Article in Journal
PTRH2 Gene Variants: Recent Review of the Phenotypic Features and Their Bioinformatics Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genes
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/genes14051033
genes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of Genetic Susceptibility to Coronary Heart Disease in the Hungarian Populations: Risk Prediction Models for Coronary Heart Disease

by
Nayla Nasr
1,2,
Beáta Soltész
3,
János Sándor
1,4,
Róza Ádány
1,4 and
Szilvia Fiatal
1,*
1
Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
2
Doctoral School of Health Sciences, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
3
Faculty of Public Health, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
4
ELKH-DE Public Health Research Group, Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genes 2023, 14(5), 1033; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14051033
Submission received: 15 March 2023 / Revised: 17 April 2023 / Accepted: 24 April 2023 / Published: 30 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Human Genomics and Genetic Diseases)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background and Aim: It was evaluated whether the integration of genetic risk scores (GRS-unweighted, wGRS-weighted) into conventional risk factor (CRF) models for coronary heart disease or acute myocardial infarction (CHD/AMI) could improve the predictive ability of the models. Methods: Subjects and data collected in a previous survey were used to perform regression and ROC curve analyses as well as to examine the role of genetic components. Thirty SNPs were selected, and genotype and phenotype data were available for 558 participants (general: N = 279 and Roma: N = 279). Results: The mean GRS (27.27 ± 3.43 vs. 26.68 ± 3.51, p = 0.046) and wGRS (3.52 ± 0.68 vs. 3.33 ± 0.62, p = 0.001) were significantly higher in the general population. The addition of the wGRS to the CRF model yielded the strongest improvement in discrimination among Roma (from 0.8616 to 0.8674), while the addition of GRS to the CRF model yielded the strongest improvement in discrimination in the general population (from 0.8149 to 0.8160). In addition to that, the Roma individuals were likely to develop CHD/AMI at a younger age than subjects in the general population. Conclusions: The combination of the CRFs and genetic components improved the model’s performance and predicted AMI/CHD better than CRFs alone.

1. Introduction

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is one of the leading causes of death and morbidity as well as one of the leading causes of premature disability among adult men and women globally [1,2,3]. In 2019, 182 million DALYs were attributed to CHD, where 9.14 million related deaths occurred (nearly 16% of global deaths), and 197 million cases were reported. These numbers increased steadily by 2021 and reached almost 185 million DALYs and 9.44 million deaths [4,5]. CHD also remains the leading cause of death in Hungary; the mortality rate due to CHD was higher than 350 per 100,000 population in 2016, and there were 32,102 deaths (nearly 24.5%) related to CHD in 2020 [6,7,8,9,10]. CHD is a condition of narrowed or blocked arteries that supply the myocardium with oxygen and supplements. The decrease in blood flow and the accumulation of lipids along with the proliferation of smooth muscle cells impair endothelial function [11,12,13]. The development and progression of CHD are a result of the complex interaction of increasing age, male sex, genetic variations (40–60%), and behavioural risk factors such as a sedentary lifestyle, obesity, smoking, harmful alcohol consumption, hyperlipidaemia, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus [14,15,16,17].
Over the past few decades, considerable advances in the clinical diagnosis and curative procedure of CHD have been achieved; however, no significant reduction in the morbidity and mortality from CHD has occurred [18]. The disease burden is increasing steadily, and the DALYs and YLL are also growing substantially. The morbidity and mortality of CHD vary among countries, populations, and specific ethnic minorities, and these variations might be due to large inequalities in socioeconomic status and education, and possibly due to differences in genetic susceptibility [18,19,20,21]. Preventive interventions for CHD are available (medication and lifestyle modification) for high-risk individuals; however, a comprehensive and precise assessment of CHD risk is needed to identify these high-risk subgroups in the early stage of the disease, thus resulting in a more cost-effective treatment strategy [22]. Prediction models play a pivotal role in assessing the risk associated with CHD among those groups, including the Framingham, SCORE, QRISK, and ASSIGN models [18].
The Roma population is a vulnerable and disadvantaged ethnic group in Hungary; most of them suffer from serious deprivation, live in inadequate housing facilities, and are below the poverty line [23,24,25]. Socioeconomic level and health status reflect their socioeconomic status and environmental factors. The Roma population has relatively limited access to healthcare units as a result most Roma CHD patients have a worse cardiometabolic profile at the entry of care, which is characterized by a high risk of premature death [26]. The Roma population is exposed to risk factors for CHD, including heavy smoking, obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus, high triglyceride levels, and low HDL-C concentrations [27,28]. Consequently, an accurate estimation for CHD risk among the Roma population is needed, as no genetic risk prediction study focuses on investigating CHD events in this vulnerable group.
This study aims to predict the risk of CHD among this vulnerable ethnicity group, by estimating and comparing the allele frequencies of 30 selected SNPs associated with this disease, computing and comparing the genetic risk score (weighted and unweighted), and by assessing the role of nongenetic (environmental and behavioral) and conventional risk factors of CHD suggested by the Framingham Score in Hungarian populations (general and Roma). These results might contribute to developing an appropriate intervention model, which might provide a sound opportunity for personalizing prevention strategies to reduce the risk of CHD.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Populations

Overall, 558 study subjects were enrolled from two Hungarian populations: the general population (n = 279) and the Roma population (n = 279). They were selected randomly in the framework of a complex comparative health survey. Notably, northeast Hungary is the geographical region where most of the Roma Hungarians live in segregated colonies (Hajdú-Bihar and Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg counties). General subjects were chosen from the same source population. Data collection was performed through questionnaires, physical examinations, and laboratory measurements. Blood samples for DNA extraction were also drawn from all the subjects. The details of the sample and data collection have been previously described [29].

2.2. Variables Formulated from the Questionnaire Data

Demographic, physical, and laboratory data (i.e., age, sex, BMI, SBP, DBP, TC, HDL-C, LDL-C, TG) were collected via a questionnaire. CHD and AMI were confirmed when participants answered “yes” to one of the following questions: “Did you have CHD or AMI during the last 12 months?”, “Have you been diagnosed with CHD or AMI by a medical doctor?”, or “Have you received hospital treatment for CHD or AMI?”. Hypertension was confirmed when participants answered “yes” to one of the following questions: “Did you have HTN during the last 12 months?”, “Have you been diagnosed with HTN by a medical doctor?”, or “Have you received a hospital treatment for HTN?” Elevated hypertension was defined as an average SBP ≥ 140 mmHg, or a DBP ≥ 90 mmHg based on the Fifth Joint National Committee Guideline (JNC-V) [30]. In addition, we defined hypertension based on the current use of hypertensive medication and an answer of “yes” to the following question: “Have you received a hospital treatment for hypertension during the last 12 months?”. The lipid profiles (HDL-C, LDL-C, and TG) were determined in the laboratory (mmol/L), while elevated TC was confirmed when participants answered “yes” to one of the following questions: “Did you have a high cholesterol level during the last 12 months?”, “Have you been diagnosed with a high cholesterol level by a doctor?”, or “Have you received a hospital treatment for a high cholesterol level?” Diabetes mellitus (DM) was confirmed when participants answered “yes” to one of the following questions: “Did you have a DM during the last 12 months?”, “Have you been diagnosed with DM by the medical doctor?”, or “Have you received a hospital treatment for DM?”. Stroke was confirmed when participants answered “yes” to one of the following questions: “Did you have a stroke during the last 10 months?”, “Have you been diagnosed with a stroke by a medical doctor?”, or “Have you received a hospital treatment for stroke?”. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was confirmed when participants answered “yes” to one of the following questions: “Did you have CKD during the last 12 months?”, “Have you been diagnosed with CKD by a medical doctor?”, or “Have you received hospital treatment for CKD?” Smoking status was confirmed when participants answered “yes” to the following question: “Are you a current smoker?”

2.3. SNPs Selection Procedure and Genotyping

Genetic variants (30 SNPs) associated with CHD were selected from previous studies (see Supplemental Table S1). In general, twenty-five SNPs that were significantly associated with CHD at a genome-wide level in prior analyses (see the details in Mega et al.) were selected [31]. Furthermore, an additional three variants were added based on a paper by Tikkanen et al. [32], and two SNPs were selected from Schenkert et al. [33] and Teslovich et al. [34]. These publications that had several overlapping SNPs were the most cited GWASs on CHD. Genotyping by the Mutation Analysis Facility, Clinical Research Centre, Karolinska University Hospital (Sweden) was successfully performed for all SNPs.

2.4. Weighted and Unweighted Genetic Risk Score (GRS, wGRS) Constructions

SNPs were coded based on the number of risk alleles as follows: 0 was assigned in the absence of the risk allele, subjects homozygous for the risk allele were coded as 2, and the single risk allele was coded as 1. The unweighted GRS was calculated by simply counting the number of risk alleles present for each SNP for every study subject, while the wGRS was computed by multiplying the risk allele score (0, 1, 2) carried for each SNP by the published effect size estimate (ln of odds ratio) [35,36].

2.5. Statistical Analysis and Software Used

First, DNA samples and the questionnaire data were matched; individuals with any missing genotype and phenotype values or individuals who did not specify their gender were excluded before the statistical analysis to minimize the possibility of systematic errors. Data quality control guidelines were applied based on a previous publication [37,38].
The allele frequencies of 30 SNPs associated with CHD in the Hungarian general and Hungarian Roma populations were analysed using Plink 1.07 software. The force-specific allele technique was used to ensure that the affected risk alleles were assigned to be first before running the commands in the allele frequency comparison analyses [39]. The HWE test in Plink 1.07 was used to exclude any SNPs that failed to be in HWE [40]. The LD calculation was performed using Haploview 4.2 software to examine whether there was any correlation between these SNPs [41] (see Supplementary Figure S1). Bonferroni correction was performed (α new = (α old/n) (p-value 0.05/29 = 0.002) [42]. Two-sided t-tests and Pearson’s chi-square tests were used to test the differences in the means and the proportions of the predictors between the study groups. Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted by using Stata 13 software to assess the relationship between the weighted and unweighted GRSs as independent predictors for CHD risk when integrated with the conventional risk factors.
We created different models by using variables (age, sex, total cholesterol level, SBP, and smoking as conventional risk factors) suggested by the SCORE model [43,44]. In addition, we updated the model by adding some potential explanatory predictors, such as genetic risk scores (wGRS and GRS divided into tertiles for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk subgroups) and diabetes mellitus (DM). Hypertension (elevated blood pressure and/or taking blood pressure-lowering therapy), high cholesterol levels (elevated TC and/or taking cholesterol-lowering therapy), and ethnicity were also included in the statistical models, as shown in Table 1.
To evaluate the potential value of the integration of CRFs and genetic risk score (GRS and wGRS) in risk prediction, the model’s performance (discrimination, calibration) was assessed. First, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of models with and without the GRS (GRS and wGRS) was computed. Second, the calibration by the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was measured. Marginal plot analysis was also used to predict the interaction between the genetic risk score (GRS, wGRS), age, and sex for CHD/AMI risk prediction.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Study Population

In general, the complete genotype and phenotype information was available for 558 participants: 279 from the Hungarian Roma population and 279 from the Hungarian general population. The mean (SD) age was 42.73 ± 12.99 years for the Hungarian Roma population and 44.14 ± 12.12 years for the Hungarian general population. The results clarified a significant difference between sexes, TC-Med, smoking status, and prevalence cases of DM, CKD, and HTN-Med. The prevalence rates of CHD and AMI were low among both groups (Roma and general), and there was no significant difference between groups. The results also indicated that the Hungarian Roma population was younger, had a lower proportion of male subjects, lower HDL-C levels, and lower mean SBP (123.57 ± 17.73). Furthermore, they had a greater tendency to be a current smoker and were likely to be exposed to chronic diseases, including DM, HTN, and CKD. Moreover, the prevalence of CHD, AMI, and stroke was higher among the Roma group (see Table 2).

3.2. Frequencies and Associations of the Individual Genetic Variants Related to CHD Risk

After the HWE test, one SNP (rs12413409) showed deviation in the Hungarian Roma population and thus was excluded from further GRS computation (see Supplementary Table S2). The allele frequencies of 30 SNPs associated with CHD risk in the Hungarian (general and Roma) population are shown in Table 3. These results were consistent with the results from previously published evidence (see Supplementary Table S1).
It was revealed that nine SNPs had significantly different prevalence in the two study populations even after the Bonferroni correction: six SNPs, rs2306374 (gene MRAS), rs9818870 (gene MRAS), rs12190287 (gene TCF21), rs10455872 (gene LPA), rs3184504 (gene SH2B3), and rs9982601 (gene KCNE2), were more prevalent in the Hungarian general population, while three SNPs, rs17609940 (gene ANKS1A), rs2259816 (gene HNF1A), and rs12936587 (gene RASD1), occurred more frequently among Roma individuals.
It was revealed (Figure 1 and Figure 2) that the mean GRS and wGRS were higher in the general population than in the Roma population (27.27 ± 3.43 vs. 26.68 ± 3.51, p-value = 0.046 and 3.52 ± 0.68 vs. 3.33 ± 0.62, p-value = 0.001, respectively).

3.3. Multivariable Regression Analyses for CHD/AMI

The odds ratio of CRFs according to SCORE-based models for CHD/AMI risk prediction revealed that age and elevated cholesterol or therapy for high cholesterol level were associated significantly with CHD/AMI risk in the Hungarian general population ((OR = 1.183, p-value = 0.046, 95% CI 1.001–1.172) and (OR = 4.899, p-value = 0.032, 95% CI 0.236–0.219)), respectively, while HTN-Med showed a significant association with CHD/AMI risk only among the Roma (OR = 7.849, p-value = 0.001, 95% CI 2.412–25.547) population (Table 4).
When we combined the study population and used ethnicity as a possible predictor: age (OR = 1.050, p-value = 0.030, 95% CI 1.005–1.096), HTC (OR = 3.553, p-value = 0.007, 95% CI 1.418–8.901), and HTN-Med (OR = 4.790, p-value = 0.001, 95% CI, 1.902–12.066) were associated significantly with CHD/AMI in the Hungarian populations (Table 5). Although ethnicity did not prove to be a significant predictor, Roma seems to have a higher risk of developing CHD/AMI independently from conventional risk factors.
Although no significant association was observed between CHD/AMI and GRS/wGRS in these models, the ORs revealed a proportionally increased risk in the second and third tertiles in the general population (Table 6 and Table 7).
The addition of GRS and wGRS tertiles to CRFs revealed that age, HTC-Med, and HTN-Med were significantly associated with CHD/AMI in the combined population independent of the effect of ethnicity (Table 8 and Table 9). The results of the analyses for each group are shown in the supplementary material (Supplementary Tables S3 and S4). Although ethnicity was not shown to be a significant and independent risk factor by itself, the results suggest that the Roma population has a higher risk of developing AMI/CHD.
By including DM as a reasonable new predictor to the updated SCORE-based genetic models (GRS and wGRS included), age, HTC-Med, and HTN-Med remained significant risk factors for developing CHD/AMI (for more details, see Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12, Supplementary Tables S3–S7). However, the GRSs still did not show a significant association with CHD/AMI.

3.4. ROC Curve Analyses

The models’ performances (discrimination, calibration, and risk classification) are described in Table 13 and Table 14. The AUC curve estimates LROC for CHD/AMI risk prediction when integrating the CRF basic, CRF with GRS, and CRF with wGRS models, which were 0.8149, 0.8346, and 0.8160 in the Hungarian general population and 0.8616, 0.8549, and 0.8674 in the Roma population, respectively. When DM was added to the models, minimal improvement occurred in the AUC values in the general population, and no significant improvement was observed among Roma individuals (Table 13). Considerable improvements in the AUC value were observed when the CRF basic model with DM was combined with GRS in the Hungarian general population (from 0.8299 to 0.8400). For the Roma population, the CRF basic model (without DM) showed the greatest improvements in the AUC value (0.8616 to 0.8674) compared to the CRFS+wGRS model. In the combined populations (Table 14), the CRF basic model with DM and ethnicity showed the greatest AUC value (LROC = 0.8525) compared to the basic model (without DM). The results of the Hosmer–Lemeshow tests indicated that all the models had a good fit (p-value ≥ 0.11).
The greatest improvement in the AUC values among the models occurred when we added the unweighted GRS to the conventional risk factors (See Supplemental Table S8).

3.5. Marginal Plot Analyses

In the Hungarian general population, CHD/AMI risk was low among males (margin = 0.001, p = 0.707; 95% CI: −0,001–0.001) and females (margin = 0.006, p = 0.516; 95% CI: −0.013–0.026) subjects between 18 and 45 years of age. The risk of the trait increased after the age of 46 years among females (margin = 0.028, p-value = 0.048, 95% CI 0.000–0.056) and after 54 years among male subjects (margin = 0.065, p-value = 0.039, 95% CI 0.003–0.126); thus, female subjects were predicted to develop CHD/AMI earlier than male subjects. For the Roma population, the marginal plot shows that CHD/AMI risk is low for younger subjects (males and females between 18 and 40 years of age; margin = 0.03, p = 0.397; 95% CI: −0.043–0.109 and margin = 0.003, p = 0.387; 95% CI: −0.004–0.011, respectively). The risk starts to significantly increase at the age of 41 years for both males and females (male subjects: margin = 0.080, p-value = 0.047, 95% CI: 0.001–0.159; female subjects: margin = 0.024, p-value = 0.045, 95% CI 0.000–0.048 for age 41 years) (see Supplementary Figure S2).
The prediction of CHD/AMI risk in the combined population revealed that the risk is higher for the Roma population. The risk becomes significant at 34 years of age in the Roma group (margin = 0.022, p-value = 0.046, 95% CI: 0.000–0.043), while for the general population, the risk becomes significant at the age of 44 (margin = 0.020, p-value = 0.046, 95% CI: 0.000–0.041) (see Supplementary Figure S3).

4. Discussion

The Hungarian population, especially the Roma living in this country, has a high risk for cardiometabolic syndrome [21,26,45,46,47,48,49]; thus, it was hypothesized that this ethnicity is more susceptible to developing CHD than the general population. A cross-sectional study-based population from Hungary was used to examine whether the integration of unweighted and weighted genetic risk scores computed from 29 SNPs into a SCORE-based prediction model improves the risk prediction of CHD/AMI. Our study revealed that the mean weighted GRS and GRS were higher for the general population. Although the vast majority of the selected SNPs were not independently associated with CHD/AMI, it seems that the general population is more likely to develop CHD/AMI.
Age is an essential non-modifiable risk factor for CHD/AMI [1]. Age was associated with CHD/AMI development in the multivariable regression model, especially in the general population. The marginal plot analyses revealed that CHD/AMI risk is obviously low among the younger populations generally; however, both populations (general and Roma) were susceptible to premature onset of CHD/AMI (before age 55 years), and the risk was expected to begin earlier among Roma individuals.
Male sex is an independent predictor for CHD (especially for AMI mortality) and plays a role in advancing CHD risk, although the mortality rate of CHD is still higher among women than men [4,10,21,50,51,52,53,54,55]. Marginal plot predictions revealed that the risk of CHD/AMI increased among female subjects of the Hungarian (general and Roma) population compared to male subjects. However, Roma (male and female) individuals tend to develop CHD/AMI before the Hungarian general population.
Hyperlipidaemia (elevated total cholesterol or lipid-lowering medication) was a major risk factor for CHD/AMI in the general population, and hypertension (elevated blood pressure or antihypertensive medication) showed a significant association with the trait only in the Roma population. DM showed no association with CHD risk in all models, possibly due to the low prevalence.
Smoking is known to be the strongest contributor to CHD/AMI in all available models, such as the Framingham, SCORE, QRISK1, QRISK2, and PROCAM models [11,12,18,43,55,56,57,58], all of which have been developed and validated to predict CHD risk in general populations. Herein, smoking was a nonsignificant predictor of an increased risk of CHD in the Hungarian populations, which might be due to selection bias or interaction as a confounding factor with some other predictors in the Hungarian populations. One reason for this could be the presence of other highly correlated predictor variables in the model that have a stronger association with cardiovascular diseases. For example, high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, and obesity are also well-established risk factors for cardiovascular diseases and may have a stronger association with the outcome variable in the multiple regression model. In this case, the effect of smoking may be overshadowed by the effects of these other variables, thus making smoking a nonsignificant factor.
Based on previous studies [2,59,60,61,62,63,64], the combination of the CRFs (based on SCORE variables) and genetic components (GRS or wGRS) might improve the model performance and predict AMI/CHD better than CRFs alone. Although GRS/wGRS were not significantly associated with CHD/AMI risk in study populations, the utility of genetic factors is unquestionable in risk prediction. We examined the predictive ability of the combined models where CRFs (basic model) and genetic risk scores were integrated. A basic model that included DM showed good discrimination improvement compared to the model without DM. In addition, the models with GRS integration showed the greatest discrimination improvement in general.
With a careful selection of CHD/AMI-associated SNPs, we tried to create a genetic scoring model that was able to provide a somewhat valid estimate (made possible by the chosen method) of the genetic load in our study populations; however, due to the small number of CHD/AMI patients in the study groups, the GRSs were not significantly associated with the trait in the regression models, but the predictive accuracy of the models having a genetic component showed a remarkable AUC improvement. In the future, validating the genetic risk prediction model using independent datasets or cohorts to assess its accuracy, reliability, and generalizability would help to determine the robustness and external validity of our model. An evaluation of the clinical utility and potential impact of the genetic risk prediction model in clinical settings would also be important. This may involve conducting prospective studies or implementation trials to assess the effectiveness of our model in clinical practice, and its potential for guiding personalized risk assessment, prevention, and treatment strategies.
Nevertheless, the utilization of genetic risk prediction models has the potential to improve health outcomes by providing personalized risk estimates and aiding in early detection and intervention. However, careful consideration and communication of the limitations and challenges of these models are necessary for their effective implementation in clinical practice.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/genes14051033/s1, Figure S1: Haploview LD results in study populations: (A) Haploview LD displayed the 30 SNPs for CHD risk among the Hungarian general populations. (B) Haploview LD displayed the 30 SNPs for CHD risk among the Roma Hungarian Populations; Figure S2: Marginal relationship of CHD/AMI risk, age, and sex-adjusted for the Hungarian populations. The vertical axis shows the probability of CHD/AMI risk; Figure S3: Marginal plot analysis of the combined populations on CHD/AMI risk; Table S1: Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) and relevant weights associated with CHD risk; Table S2: The observed and expected frequencies of alleles according to Hardy Weinberg Equation for CHD variants in Hungarian general and Roma populations; Table S3: Odds ratio of CRFs and GRS for predicting CHD/AMI risk in the Hungarian populations; Table S4: Odds ratio of CRFs and wGRS for predicting CHD AMI risk in the Hungarian populations; Table S5: Odds ratio of the CHD/AMI risk prediction model based on the CRFs plus DM in separate the study groups; Table S6: Odds ratio of CRFs plus DM and GRS for CHDAMI risk prediction model among the study populations; Table S7: Odds ratio of CRFs plus DM and wGRS for CHDAMI risk prediction model among the study populations; Table S8: Calculation of the AUC changes in the basic and updated models.

Author Contributions

N.N. performed the data analyses and drafted the manuscript; B.S. participated in the analyses; S.F. guided the data analyses, developed the methodology, and corrected the manuscript; J.S. and R.Á. provided a great institutional background and funding framework to perform this work and made available the valuable dataset of the complex comparative health survey. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financed by the Stipendium Hungaricum Scholarship Programme of the Tempus Public Foundation, the European Union, under the European Regional Development Fund (GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00005).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Hungarian Scientific Council on Health Research committee approved the protocol (61327-2017/EKU). All participants provided written consent before participation.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was sought from all study participants before collecting the data.

Data Availability Statement

All necessary data related to this study will be made available by the authors without undue reservation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

AUCArea under the receiver operating characteristics
BMIBody Mass Index
CHDCoronary Heart Disease
CHD/AMICoronary Heart Disease and Acute Myocardial Infarction
CRFsConventional Risk Factors
DBPDiastolic Blood Pressure
GRSUnweighted Genetic Risk Score
GRSsGenetic Risk Scores
GWASGenome-Wide Association Studies.
HDL-CHigh-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol
HTC-MedMedication Against High Total Cholesterol
HTN-MedHypertensive Medication.
HWEHardy-Weinberg Equilibrium.
LDLinkage Disequilibrium
LDL-CLow Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol
OROdds Ratio
SBPSystolic Blood Pressure
SCORESystematic Coronary Risk Evaluation
SDStandard Deviation
SNPsSingle Nucleotide Polymorphisms.
TCTotal Cholesterol
TGTriglycerides
wGRSWeighted Genetic Risk Score

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO Reveals Leading Causes of Death and Disability Worldwide 2000–2019; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://www.paho.org/en/news/9-12-2020-who-reveals-leading-causes-death-and-disability-worldwide-2000-2019 (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  2. Gui, L.; Wu, F.; Han, X.; Dai, X.; Qiu, G.; Li, J.; Wang, J.; Zhang, X.; Wu, T.; He, M. A multilocus genetic risk score predicts coronary heart disease risk in a Chinese Han population. Atherosclerosis 2014, 237, 480–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Nowbar, A.N.; Gitto, M.; Howard, J.P.; Francis, D.P.; Al-Lamee, R. Mortality From Ischemic Heart Disease. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 2019, 12, e005375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Roth, G.A.; Mensah, G.A.; Johnson, C.O.; Addolorato, G.; Ammirati, E.; Baddour, L.M.; Barengo, N.C.; Beaton, A.Z.; Benjamin, E.J.; Benziger, C.P.; et al. Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risk Factors, 1990–2019: Update From the GBD 2019 Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 76, 2982–3021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Vaduganathan, M.; Mensah, G.A.; Turco, J.V.; Fuster, V.; Roth, G.A. The Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risk: A Compass for Future Health. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2022, 80, 2361–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Timmis, A.; Townsend, N.; Gale, C.; Grobbee, R.; Maniadakis, N.; Flather, M.; Wilkins, E.; Wright, L.; Vos, R.; Bax, J.; et al. European Society of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Disease Statistics 2017. Eur. Heart J. 2017, 39, 508–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Timmis, A.; Townsend, N.; Gale, C.P.; Torbica, A.; Lettino, M.; Petersen, S.E.; Mossialos, E.A.; Maggioni, A.P.; Kazakiewicz, D.; May, H.T.; et al. European Society of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Disease Statistics 2019. Eur. Heart J. 2019, 41, 12–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Lindstrom, M.; DeCleene, N.; Dorsey, H.; Fuster, V.; Johnson, C.O.; LeGrand, K.E.; Mensah, G.A.; Razo, C.; Stark, B.; Varieur Turco, J.; et al. Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risks Collaboration, 1990–2021. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2022, 80, 2372–2425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. OECD. State of Health in the EU Hungary: Country Health Profile; OECD: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  10. OECD. State of Health in the EU Hungary: Country Health Profile; OECD: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  11. Park, K. Park’s Textbook of Preventive and Social. Medicine, 18th ed.; Banarasidas Bhanot: Jabalpur, India, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  12. Park, K. Park’s Textbook of Preventive and Social. Medicine, 25th ed.; Banarasidas Bhanot: Jabalpur, India, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  13. Themistocleous, I.C.; Stefanakis, M.; Douda, H. Coronary Heart Disease Part I: Pathophysiology and Risk Factors. J. Phys. Act. Nutr. Rehabil. 2017, 3, 167–175. [Google Scholar]
  14. McPherson, R.; Tybjaerg-Hansen, A. Genetics of Coronary Artery Disease. Circ. Res. 2016, 118, 564–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brown, J.C.; Gerhardt, T.E.; Kwon, E. Risk Factors For Coronary Artery Disease. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Tampa, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  16. Karunathilake, S.P.; Ganegoda, G.U. Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases and Application of Technology for Early Diagnosis. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 5767864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Brown, T.M.; Voeks, J.H.; Bittner, V.; Safford, M.M. Variations in prevalent cardiovascular disease and future risk by metabolic syndrome classification in the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study. Am. Heart J. 2010, 159, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Dent, T.H. Predicting the risk of coronary heart disease I. The use of conventional risk markers. Atherosclerosis 2010, 213, 345–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Dent, T.H. Predicting the risk of coronary heart disease. II: The role of novel molecular biomarkers and genetics in estimating risk, and the future of risk prediction. Atherosclerosis 2010, 213, 352–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Rosengren, A.; Smyth, A.; Rangarajan, S.; Ramasundarahettige, C.; Bangdiwala, S.I.; AlHabib, K.F.; Avezum, A.; Bengtsson Bostrom, K.; Chifamba, J.; Gulec, S.; et al. Socioeconomic status and risk of cardiovascular disease in 20 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiologic (PURE) study. Lancet Glob. Health 2019, 7, e748–e760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Gillum, R.F.; Mehari, A.; Curry, B.; Obisesan, T.O. Racial and geographic variation in coronary heart disease mortality trends. BMC Public. Health 2012, 12, 410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Kandaswamy, E.; Zuo, L. Recent Advances in Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease: Role of Science and Technology. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Timmer, A.D. Working with “Problem Populations”: Participatory Interventions for the Roma in Hungary. Human. Organ. 2013, 72, 302–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zeljko, H.M.; Skaric-Juric, T.; Narancic, N.S.; Baresic, A.; Tomas, Z.; Petranovic, M.Z.; Milicic, J.; Salihovic, M.P.; Janicijevic, B. Age trends in prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in Roma minority population of Croatia. Econ. Hum. Biol. 2013, 11, 326–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Soltész, B.; Pikó, P.; Sándor, J.; Kósa, Z.; Ádány, R.; Fiatal, S. The genetic risk for hypertension is lower among the Hungarian Roma population compared to the general population. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0234547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Piko, P.; Kosa, Z.; Sandor, J.; Adany, R. Comparative risk assessment for the development of cardiovascular diseases in the Hungarian general and Roma population. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 3085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fedacko, J.; Pella, D.; Jarcuska, P.; Siegfried, L.; Janicko, M.; Veseliny, E.; Pella, J.; Sabol, F.; Jarcuska, P.; Marekova, M.; et al. Prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in relation to metabolic syndrome in the Roma population compared with the non-Roma population in the eastern part of Slovakia. Cent. Eur. J. Public. Health 2014, 22, S69–S74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Hujova, Z.; Alberty, R.; Ahlers, I.; Ahlersova, E.; Paulikova, E.; Desatnikova, J.; Gabor, D.; Hruba, F. Cardiovascular Risk Predictors in Central Slovakian Roma Children and Adolescents: Regional Differences. Cent. Eur. J. Public. Health 2010, 18, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Ádány, R.; Pikó, P.; Fiatal, S.; Kósa, Z.; Sándor, J.; Bíró, É.; Kósa, K.; Paragh, G.; Bácsné Bába, É.; Veres-Balajti, I.; et al. Prevalence of Insulin Resistance in the Hungarian General and Roma Populations as Defined by Using Data Generated in a Complex Health (Interview and Examination) Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2020, 17, 4833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pogue, V.A.; Ellis, C.; Michel, J.; Francis, C.K. New Staging System of the Fifth Joint National Committee Report on the Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC-V) Alters Assessment of the Severity and Treatment of Hypertension. Hypertension 1996, 28, 713–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mega, J.L.; Stitziel, N.O.; Smith, J.G.; Chasman, D.I.; Caulfield, M.J.; Devlin, J.J.; Nordio, F.; Hyde, C.L.; Cannon, C.P.; Sacks, F.M.; et al. Genetic risk, coronary heart disease events, and the clinical benefit of statin therapy: An analysis of primary and secondary prevention trials. Lancet 2015, 385, 2264–2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Tikkanen, E.; Havulinna, A.S.; Palotie, A.; Salomaa, V.; Ripatti, S. Genetic Risk Prediction and a 2-Stage Risk Screening Strategy for Coronary Heart Disease. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2013, 33, 2261–2266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Schunkert, H.; König, I.R.; Kathiresan, S.; Reilly, M.P.; Assimes, T.L.; Holm, H.; Preuss, M.; Stewart, A.F.R.; Barbalic, M.; Gieger, C.; et al. Large-scale association analysis identifies 13 new susceptibility loci for coronary artery disease. Nat. Genet. 2011, 43, 333–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Teslovich, T.M.; Musunuru, K.; Smith, A.V.; Edmondson, A.C.; Stylianou, I.M.; Koseki, M.; Pirruccello, J.P.; Ripatti, S.; Chasman, D.I.; Willer, C.J.; et al. Biological, clinical and population relevance of 95 loci for blood lipids. Nature 2010, 466, 707–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Yang, C.; Starnecker, F.; Pang, S.; Chen, Z.; Güldener, U.; Li, L.; Heinig, M.; Schunkert, H. Polygenic risk for coronary artery disease in the Scottish and English population. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord. 2021, 21, 586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ripatti, S.; Tikkanen, E.; Orho-Melander, M.; Havulinna, A.S.; Silander, K.; Sharma, A.; Guiducci, C.; Perola, M.; Jula, A.; Sinisalo, J.; et al. A multilocus genetic risk score for coronary heart disease: Case-control and prospective cohort analyses. Lancet 2010, 376, 1393–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Anderson, C.A.; Pettersson, F.H.; Clarke, G.M.; Cardon, L.R.; Morris, A.P.; Zondervan, K.T. Data quality control in genetic case-control association studies. Nat. Protoc. 2010, 5, 1564–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Clarke, G.M.; Anderson, C.A.; Pettersson, F.H.; Cardon, L.R.; Morris, A.P.; Zondervan, K.T. Basic statistical analysis in genetic case-control studies. Nat. Protoc. 2011, 6, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Purcell, S.; Neale, B.; Todd-Brown, K.; Thomas, L.; Ferreira, M.A.R.; Bender, D.; Maller, J.; Sklar, P.; de Bakker, P.I.W.; Daly, M.J.; et al. PLINK: A Tool Set for Whole-Genome Association and Population-Based Linkage Analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2007, 81, 559–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Abramovs, N.; Brass, A.; Tassabehji, M. Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium in the Large Scale Genomic Sequencing Era. Front. Genet. 2020, 11, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Barrett, J.C. Haploview: Visualization and analysis of SNP genotype data. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2009, 2009, pdb.ip71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gao, X.; Starmer, J.; Martin, E.R. A multiple testing correction method for genetic association studies using correlated single nucleotide polymorphisms. Genet. Epidemiol. 2008, 32, 361–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Piepoli, M.F.; Hoes, A.W.; Agewall, S.; Albus, C.; Brotons, C.; Catapano, A.L.; Cooney, M.-T.; Corrà, U.; Cosyns, B.; Deaton, C.; et al. 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: The Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts) Developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR). Eur. Heart J. 2016, 37, 2315–2381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Visseren, F.L.J.; Mach, F.; Smulders, Y.M.; Carballo, D.; Koskinas, K.C.; Bäck, M.; Benetos, A.; Biffi, A.; Boavida, J.-M.; Capodanno, D.; et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: Developed by the Task Force for cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice with representatives of the European Society of Cardiology and 12 medical societies With the special contribution of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC). Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 3227–3337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pallayova, M.; Brenisin, M.; Putrya, A.; Vrsko, M.; Drazilova, S.; Janicko, M.; Marekova, M.; Pella, D.; Geckova, A.M.; Urdzik, P.; et al. Roma Ethnicity and Sex-Specific Associations of Serum Uric Acid with Cardiometabolic and Hepatorenal Health Factors in Eastern Slovakian Population: The HepaMeta Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2020, 17, 7673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Petrikova, J.; Janicko, M.; Fedacko, J.; Drazilova, S.; Madarasova Geckova, A.; Marekova, M.; Pella, D.; Jarcuska, P. Serum Uric Acid in Roma and Non-Roma—Its Correlation with Metabolic Syndrome and Other Variables. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2018, 15, 1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Ádány, R. Roma health is global ill health. Eur. J. Public. Health 2014, 24, 702–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Piko, P.; Fiatal, S.; Kosa, Z.; Sandor, J.; Adany, R. Increased risk of Roma for 10-year development of CVDs based on Framingham Risk Score calculation. Eur. J. Public. Health 2019, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kósa, Z.; Moravcsik-Kornyicki, Á.; Diószegi, J.; Roberts, B.; Szabó, Z.; Sándor, J.; Ádány, R. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome among Roma: A comparative health examination survey in Hungary. Eur. J. Public. Health 2014, 25, 299–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. D’Agostino, R.B.; Vasan, R.S.; Pencina, M.J.; Wolf, P.A.; Cobain, M.; Massaro, J.M.; Kannel, W.B. General Cardiovascular Risk Profile for Use in Primary Care. Circulation 2008, 117, 743–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Farzadfar, F. Cardiovascular disease risk prediction models: Challenges and perspectives. Lancet Glob. Health 2019, 7, e1288–e1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Chen, Q.; Ding, D.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Li, Q.; Chen, X.; Hu, G.; Ling, W. Prediction of the risk of mortality using risk score in patients with coronary heart disease. Oncotarget 2016, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Wenger, N.K.; Shaw, L.J.; Vaccarino, V. Coronary Heart Disease in Women: Update 2008. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2008, 83, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Crea, F.; Battipaglia, I.; Andreotti, F. Sex differences in mechanisms, presentation and management of ischaemic heart disease. Atherosclerosis 2015, 241, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Hajar, R. Risk factors for coronary artery disease: Historical perspectives. Heart Views 2017, 18, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Wilson, P.W.F.; D’Agostino, R.B.; Levy, D.; Belanger, A.M.; Silbershatz, H.; Kannel, W.B. Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease Using Risk Factor Categories. Circulation 1998, 97, 1837–1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Critchley, J.A.; Capewell, S. Mortality Risk Reduction Associated With Smoking Cessation in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review. JAMA 2003, 290, 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Campbell, N.C.; Thain, J.; Deans, H.G.; Ritchie, L.D.; Rawles, J.M. Secondary prevention in coronary heart disease: Baseline survey of provision in general practice. BMJ 1998, 316, 1430–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Bolton, J.L.; Stewart, M.C.W.; Wilson, J.F.; Anderson, N.; Price, J.F. Improvement in Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease Risk over Conventional Risk Factors Using SNPs Identified in Genome-Wide Association Studies. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e57310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Ganna, A.; Magnusson, P.K.E.; Pedersen, N.L.; Faire, U.D.; Reilly, M.; Ärnlöv, J.; Sundström, J.; Hamsten, A.; Ingelsson, E. Multilocus Genetic Risk Scores for Coronary Heart Disease Prediction. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2013, 33, 2267–2272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Lluis-Ganella, C.; Subirana, I.; Lucas, G.; Tomás, M.; Muñoz, D.; Sentí, M.; Salas, E.; Sala, J.; Ramos, R.; Ordovas, J.M.; et al. Assessment of the value of a genetic risk score in improving the estimation of coronary risk. Atherosclerosis 2012, 222, 456–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Morrison, A.C.; Bare, L.A.; Chambless, L.E.; Ellis, S.G.; Malloy, M.; Kane, J.P.; Pankow, J.S.; Devlin, J.J.; Willerson, J.T.; Boerwinkle, E. Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease Risk using a Genetic Risk Score: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2007, 166, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hughes, M.F.; Saarela, O.; Stritzke, J.; Kee, F.; Silander, K.; Klopp, N.; Kontto, J.; Karvanen, J.; Willenborg, C.; Salomaa, V.; et al. Genetic Markers Enhance Coronary Risk Prediction in Men: The MORGAM Prospective Cohorts. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e40922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Patel, R.S.; Sun, Y.V.; Hartiala, J.; Veledar, E.; Su, S.; Sher, S.; Liu, Y.X.; Rahman, A.; Patel, R.; Rab, S.T.; et al. Association of a Genetic Risk Score With Prevalent and Incident Myocardial Infarction in Subjects Undergoing Coronary Angiography. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 2012, 5, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Genes 14 01033 g001 550
Figure 1. The unweighted genetic risk score distribution among the Hungarian general and Hungarian Roma populations (p-value = 0.046).
Figure 1. The unweighted genetic risk score distribution among the Hungarian general and Hungarian Roma populations (p-value = 0.046).
Genes 14 01033 g001
Genes 14 01033 g002 550
Figure 2. Distribution of the weighted genetic risk score in study populations (p-value = 0.001).
Figure 2. Distribution of the weighted genetic risk score in study populations (p-value = 0.001).
Genes 14 01033 g002
Table
Table 1. Multivariable logistic models developed for CHD and AMI risk prediction.
Table 1. Multivariable logistic models developed for CHD and AMI risk prediction.
ModelsExplanatory Variables
SCORE based models + ethnicityage, sex, HTC-Med, HTN-Med, smoking (CRFs)
CRFs + ethnicity *
Genetic based models onlyGRS per tertiles
wGRS per tertiles
SCORE based models + genetic models + ethnicityCRFs + GRS + ethnicity
CRFs + wGRS + ethnicity
SCORE based models upgraded * CRFs + DM
CRFs + DM + ethnicity
SCORE based models + genetic models + ethnicity upgraded *CRFs + DM + GRS + ethnicity
CRFs + DM + wGRS + ethnicity
* The Hungarian population was set as the reference. Outcome variable: CHD/AMI. TC-Med: high total cholesterol level/or taking cholesterol-lowering therapy; HTN-Med: elevated blood pressure and/or taking blood pressure lowering therapy; CRFs: conventional risk factors; GRS: unweighted GRS; wGRS: weighted GRS. * Upgraded by adding DM as an explanatory variable.
Table
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the Hungarian general and Roma populations.
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the Hungarian general and Roma populations.
CharacteristicsHungarian General
(n = 279)		Hungarian Roma (n = 279)p-Value
Age (years, mean ± SD)44.14 ± 12.1242.73 ± 12.990.177
18–36 age-group (%)27.6034.77
37–49 age-group (%)35.4830.82
50–77 age-group (%)36.9234.41
Sex male/female (%)43.73/56.2723.3/76.7<0.001
BMI kg/m2 (mean ± SD)27.11 ± 5.4927.29 ± 6.720.725
SBP mmHg (mean ± SD)126.94 ± 15.23123.57 ± 17.730.017
DBP mmHg (mean ± SD)78.91 ± 8.7179.97 ± 10.260.189
TC mmol/l (mean ± SD)4.95 ±1.144. 90 ± 1.070.563
HDL-C mmol/l (mean ± SD)70.11 ± 33.1561.00 ± 30.980.001
LDL-C mmol/l (mean ± SD)3.07 ± 1.003.15 ± 0.940.328
TG mmol/l (mean ± SD)1.58 ± 1.091.57 ± 0.950.884
CHD yes/no (%)2.87/97.133.94/9.060.484
AMI yes/no (%)1.08/98.923.23/96.770.080
Stroke yes/no (%)1.43/98.573.23/96.770.161
DM yes/no (%)6.09/93.9112.54/87.460.009
HTN yes/no (%)28.32/71.6834.05/65.950.144
CKD yes/no (%)0.72/99.284.3 /95.70.007
HTN-Med yes/no (%)4.3/95.715.41/84.59<0.001
HTC-Med yes/no (%)7.89/ 92.1114.34/ 85.660.015
Smoking currently yes/no (%)32.97/67.0369.95/34.05<0.001
BMI: body mass index, SBP: systolic blood pressure, DBP: diastolic blood pressure, TC: total cholesterol, HDL-C: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, TG: triglyceride, CHD: coronary heart disease, AMI: acute myocardial infarction, DM: diabetes mellitus, HTN: hypertension, CKD: chronic kidney disease, HTN-Med: anti-hypertensive medication, HTC-Med: medication against high total cholesterol. (Bold values indicate significant difference).
Table
Table 3. CHD risk allele frequencies in Hungarian General and Roma Hungarian populations.
Table 3. CHD risk allele frequencies in Hungarian General and Roma Hungarian populations.
rs NumberCHRRARomaHungarianOAp-Value
rs112065101T0.8750.814C0.005
rs171140361A0.9190.918G0.913
rs6467761T0.8230.789C0.151
rs174656371C0.6540.703A0.084
rs67258872C0.0840.100T0.352
rs23063743C0.0660.145T<0.001
rs98188703T0.0660.142C<0.001
rs93493796G0.4750.430A0.133
rs125264536G0.3390.344C0.850
rs176099406G0.9520.884C<0.001
rs121902876C0.5520.647G0.001
rs37982206C0.0020.013T0.033
rs104558726G0.0200.057A0.001
rs115569247C0.7060.669T0.175
rs49775749G0.5700.488A0.006
rs5794599C0.2380.285T0.077
rs6356349T0.1920.262C0.005
rs174604810C0.7920.817T0.291
rs1241340910G0.8010.862A0.007
rs96418411G0.1940.145C0.031
rs318450412T0.3660.529C<0.001
rs225981612T0.4800.344G<0.001
rs477314413G0.4140.416A0.952
rs289581114C0.3440.412T0.019
rs382580715A0.5040.590G0.004
rs21617217C0.2850.324G0.153
rs1293658717G0.7310.597A<0.001
rs4652217T0.5720.548C0.433
rs112260819G0.7200.769T0.064
rs998260121T0.0860.147C0.002
CHR: chromosome, RA: Risk allele, OA: another allele. Bold values indicate those allele frequencies that remain significant after the Bonferroni correction.
Table
Table 4. The odds ratio associated with CRFs in the model for predicting CHD/AMI risk in the Hungarian populations.
Table 4. The odds ratio associated with CRFs in the model for predicting CHD/AMI risk in the Hungarian populations.
CHD/AMIHungarian GeneralHungarian Roma
ORp-Value95% CIORp-Value95% CI
Age1.1830.046 *1.001–1.1721.0290.3170.973–1.087
Sex(Male)1.6230.4800.424–6.1552.3380.1490.738–7.403
HTC-Med4.8990.032 *0.236–0.2192.9990.0780.885–10.157
HTN-Med1.3730.7811.151–20.8487.8490.001 *2.412–25.547
Smoking0.9160.9050.147–12.7781.2640.7040.377–4.232
* Statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).
Table
Table 5. Odds ratio associated with CRFs in model for predicting CHD/AMI risk in the combined populations.
Table 5. Odds ratio associated with CRFs in model for predicting CHD/AMI risk in the combined populations.
CHDAMIORp-Value95% CI
Age1.0500.030 * 1.005–1.096
Sex (Male)1.9160.1390.809–4.537
Ethnicity **1.4680.4100.588–3.665
HTC-Med3.5530.007 *1.418–8.901
HTN-Med4.7900.001 *1.902–12.066
Smoking1.0590.9010.427–2.628
** Hungarian general population was a reference population. * Statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).
Table
Table 6. Odds ratio of the GRS-based model for CHD/AMI in the Hungarian population.
Table 6. Odds ratio of the GRS-based model for CHD/AMI in the Hungarian population.
CHD/AMIHungarian GeneralHungarian Roma
ORp-Value95% CIORp-Value95% CI
GRS-T21.9650.5500.215–17.9930.3720.1250.105–1.317
GRS-T32.8280.3480.322–24.8180.6680.5080.203–2.020
GRS tertiles; GRS T1 (18–24) was set as reference, GRS T2 (25–28), GRS T3 (29–37).
Table
Table 7. Odds ratio of the wGRS based model for CHD/AMI in the Hungarian populations.
Table 7. Odds ratio of the wGRS based model for CHD/AMI in the Hungarian populations.
CHD/AMIHungarian GeneralHungarian Roma
ORp-Value95% CIORp-Value95% CI
wGRS-T21.1130.9080.181–6.8370.9260.8990.283–3.024
wGRS-T31.8000.4900.340–9.5390.7790.6990.220–2.756
wGRS tertiles; wGRS T1 (1.964–3.047) was set as reference, wGRS T2 (3.049–3.686), wGRS T3 (3.692–5.509).
Table
Table 8. Odds ratio of CRFs plus ethnicity and GRS for CHD/AMI risk prediction in the study populations.
Table 8. Odds ratio of CRFs plus ethnicity and GRS for CHD/AMI risk prediction in the study populations.
CHDAMIORp-Value95% CI
Age1.0470.040 *1.002–1.094
Sex(Male)2.0560.1140.841–5.022
Ethnicity **1.4730.4110.586–3.706
HTC-Med3.8620.005 *1.513–9.855
HTN_Med4.6740.001 *1.820–12.007
Smoking1.0260.9570.409–2.573
GRS-T20.5280.2610.173–1.610
GRS-T30.9950.9930.338–2.928
** Hungarian general population was a reference population. * Statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).
Table
Table 9. Ethnicity and wGRS for predicting CHDAMI risk in the study populations.
Table 9. Ethnicity and wGRS for predicting CHDAMI risk in the study populations.
CHDAMIORp-Value95% CI
Age1.0510.029 *1.005–1.098
Sex(Male)1.8790.1610.778–4.539
Ethnicity **1.4650.4130.587–3.660
HTC-Med3.5240.007 *1.406–8.832
HTN_Med4.9070.001 *1.920–12.541
Smoking1.0580.9030.426–2.630
wGRS-T21.1690.7790.393–3.484
wGRS-T31.0670.9040.371–3.069
** Hungarian general population was a reference population. * Statistically significant (p-value < 0.05), and wGRS-T1 were set as references.
Table
Table 10. Odds ratio of CRFs with DM for CHD/AMI risk prediction among the study populations.
Table 10. Odds ratio of CRFs with DM for CHD/AMI risk prediction among the study populations.
CHDAMIORp-Value95% CI
Age1.0460.046 *1.001–1.094
Sex(Male)1.9420.1340.816–4.621
Ethnicity **1.5590.3460.619–3.928
HTC-Med3.3220.011 *1.315–8.391
DM1.6770.3230.602–4.678
HTN_Med4.4060.002 *1.711–11.342
Smoking 1.0530.9110.424–2.620
** Hungarian general population was a reference population. * Statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).
Table
Table 11. Odds ratio of CRFs plus ethnicity, DM, and GRS for CHDAMI risk prediction model among the study populations.
Table 11. Odds ratio of CRFs plus ethnicity, DM, and GRS for CHDAMI risk prediction model among the study populations.
CHDAMIORp-Value95% CI
Age1.0440.0590.998–1.091
Sex (Male)2.0610.1150.839–5.063
Ethnicity **1.5450.3590.609–3.916
HTC-Med3.6050.008 *1.399–9.289
DM1.5720.3950554–4.458
HTN-Med4.3950.002 *1.684–11.458
Smoking 1.0250.9580.408–2.576
GRS-T20.5590.3110.181–1.724
GRS-T31.0300.9580.347–3.056
** Hungarian general population was a reference population. * Statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).
Table
Table 12. Odds ratio of CRFs plus ethnicity, DM, and wGRS for CHDAMI risk prediction model among the study populations.
Table 12. Odds ratio of CRFs plus ethnicity, DM, and wGRS for CHDAMI risk prediction model among the study populations.
CHDAMIORp-Value95% CI
Age1.0470.044 *1.001–1.095
Sex (Male)1.8880.1610.776–4.591
Ethnicity **1.5580.3470.618–3.926
HTC-Med3.2760.012 *1.296–8.280
DM1.7110.3060.612–4.783
HTN_Med4.5610.002*1.747–11.908
Smoking1.0510.9140.422–2.618
wGRS-T21.2420.7010.411–3.753
wGRS-T31.1040.8570.378–3.223
** Hungarian general population was a reference population. * Statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).
Table
Table 13. Models’ performances for CHD/AMI risk based on the CRFs and GRS/wGRS in the Hungarian populations.
Table 13. Models’ performances for CHD/AMI risk based on the CRFs and GRS/wGRS in the Hungarian populations.
ModelsHungarian GeneralHungarian Roma
SENSSPECCLASSCALIBLROCSENSSPECCLASSCALIBLROC
1. CHD/AMI models basic SCORE
CRFs basic60.0082.9082.080.96010.814981.2576.8177.060.21930.8616
CRFs+GRS70.0085.5084.950.92410.834681.2577.5777.780.70870.8549
CRFs+wGRS60.0084.0183.150.93490.816081.2577.5777.780.38030.8674
2. CHD/AMI models based on the updated SCORE (plus DM)
CRFs+DM60.0086.9986.020.28180.829981.2577.1977.420.22980.8611
CRFs+DM+GRS60.0086.9986.020.65870.840081.2577.5777.780.50610.8534
CRFs+DM+wGRS60.0086.6285.660.94960.833381.2577.1977.420.38070.8670
CFRs: conventional risk factor, GRS: unweighted GRS, wGRS: weighted GRS, SENS: sensitivity, SPEC: specificity, CLASS: Classification, CALIB: calibration, LROC: logit ROC measures. The bold highlight indicated that the LROC is showing improvement after adding GRS, wGRS, and DM to the basic model.
Table
Table 14. Models’ performances for CHD/AMI risk based on the CRFs and GRS/wGRS in the combined populations using ethnicity predictor.
Table 14. Models’ performances for CHD/AMI risk based on the CRFs and GRS/wGRS in the combined populations using ethnicity predictor.
ModelsHungarian General
SENSSPECCLASSCALIBLROC
1.  CHD/AMI models basic SCORE
CRFs+E76.9281.0280.820.78430.8479
CRFs+GRS+E80.7781.7781.180.10820.8490
CRFs+wGRS+E76.9281.0280.820.79220.8456
2.  CHD/AMI models based on the updated SCORE
CRFs+DM+E80.7780.8380.820.53290.8525
CRFs++DM+GRS+E80.7780.8380.820.47370.8518
CRFs+DM+wGRS+E80.7781.2081.180.78420.8497
E: Ethnicity, CFRs: conventional risk factor, GRS: unweighted GRS, wGRS: weighted GRS, SENS: sensitivity, SPEC: specificity, CLASS: Classification, CALIB: calibration, LROC: logit ROC measures. The bold highlight indicated that the LROC is showing improvement after adding Ethnicity (E), GRS, and DM to the basic model.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nasr, N.; Soltész, B.; Sándor, J.; Ádány, R.; Fiatal, S. Comparison of Genetic Susceptibility to Coronary Heart Disease in the Hungarian Populations: Risk Prediction Models for Coronary Heart Disease. Genes 2023, 14, 1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14051033

AMA Style

Nasr N, Soltész B, Sándor J, Ádány R, Fiatal S. Comparison of Genetic Susceptibility to Coronary Heart Disease in the Hungarian Populations: Risk Prediction Models for Coronary Heart Disease. Genes. 2023; 14(5):1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14051033

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nasr, Nayla, Beáta Soltész, János Sándor, Róza Ádány, and Szilvia Fiatal. 2023. "Comparison of Genetic Susceptibility to Coronary Heart Disease in the Hungarian Populations: Risk Prediction Models for Coronary Heart Disease" Genes 14, no. 5: 1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14051033

APA Style

Nasr, N., Soltész, B., Sándor, J., Ádány, R., & Fiatal, S. (2023). Comparison of Genetic Susceptibility to Coronary Heart Disease in the Hungarian Populations: Risk Prediction Models for Coronary Heart Disease. Genes, 14(5), 1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14051033

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop