Citations

A faster expansion rate of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) increases the risk of rupture. Women are at higher risk of rupture than men, but the mechanisms underlying this increased risk are unknown. We investigated whether genetic variants that influence susceptibility for AAA ( CDKN2A-2B, SORT1, DAB2IP, LRP1 and LDLR) are associated with AAA expansion and whether these associations differ by sex in 650 patients with AAA (mean age 70±8 years, 17% women) enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Vascular Disease Biorepository. Women had a mean aneurysm expansion 0.41 mm/year greater than men after adjustment for baseline AAA size. In addition to baseline size, mean arterial pressure (MAP), non-diabetic status, SORT1-rs599839[G] and DAB2IP-rs7025486[A] were associated with greater aneurysm expansion (all p<0.05). The associations of MAP and rs599839[G] were similar in both sexes, while the associations of baseline size, pulse pressure (PP) and rs7025486[A] were stronger in women than men (all p - sex interaction ≤0.02). A three-way interaction of PP*sex* rs7025486[A] was noted in a full-factorial analysis (p=0.007) independent of baseline size and MAP. In the high PP group (≥median), women had a mean growth rate 0.68 mm/year greater per [A] of rs7025486 than men (p - sex interaction =0.003), whereas there was no difference in the low PP group (p - sex interaction =0.8). We demonstrate that variants DAB2IP-rs7025486[A] and SORT1-rs599839[G] are associated with AAA expansion. The association of rs7025486[A] is stronger in women than men and amplified by high PP, contributing to sex differences in aneurysm expansion.

AbstractLittle is known about individuals’ motivation, perception, and treatment beliefs towards the use of genetic information in risk estimates for coronary heart disease (CHD). In this study, participants at intermediate 10‐year risk of CHD were randomized to receive either their estimated conventional risk score (CRS) alone, or a CRS and a genetic risk score (GRS), by a genetic counselor. Surveys on motivation to participate in and perception of genetic testing for CHD were administered at 3 months and treatment beliefs at 6 months following risk disclosure. Survey responses used Likert scales. Linear and logistic regression were used for analysis. Overall, motivation to participate in genomic clinical trials was favorable and did not differ between the CRS and GRS groups (16.95 ± 0.82 vs. 17.58 ± 0.83, p = 0.091), but participants who initially received their GRS indicated a greater desire to find ways to improve health as a reason for participation (OR: 0.53 (95%CI: 0.29, 0.94), p = 0.028). Perception of genetic testing was also favorable in both groups (15.29 ± 0.39 vs. 15.12 ± 0.40, p = 0.835). Participants who initially received their GRS were more inclined to recommend genetic testing to family and friends (9.95 ± 1.88 vs. 10.52 ± 2.17, p = 0.023). In the MI‐GENES study, motivation to participate in and perception of genetic testing among study participants were overall favorable. Genetic risk disclosure was associated with increased motivation to recommend genetic testing to family and friends.

Whether disclosure of genetic risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) influences shared decision-making (SDM) regarding use of statins to reduce CHD risk is unknown. We randomized 207 patients, age 45–65 years, at intermediate CHD risk, and not on statins, to receive the 10-year risk of CHD based on conventional risk factors alone (n=103) or in combination with a genetic risk score (n=104). A genetic counselor disclosed this information followed by a physician visit for SDM regarding statin therapy. A novel decision aid was used in both encounters to disclose the CHD risk estimates and facilitate SDM regarding statin use. Patients reported their decision quality and physician visit satisfaction using validated surveys. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the SDM score, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, perception of the quality of the discussion or of participation in decision-making and physician visit satisfaction scores. Quantitative analyses of a random subset of 80 video-recorded encounters using the OPTION5 scale also showed no significant difference in SDM between the two groups. Disclosure of CHD genetic risk using an electronic health record-linked decision aid did not adversely affect SDM or patients’ satisfaction with the clinical encounter. Trial registration number NCT01936675; Results.

Background— Whether knowledge of genetic risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) affects health-related outcomes is unknown. We investigated whether incorporating a genetic risk score (GRS) in CHD risk estimates lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Methods and Results— Participants (n=203, 45–65 years of age, at intermediate risk for CHD, and not on statins) were randomly assigned to receive their 10-year probability of CHD based either on a conventional risk score (CRS) or CRS + GRS ( + GRS). Participants in the + GRS group were stratified as having high or average/low GRS. Risk was disclosed by a genetic counselor followed by shared decision making regarding statin therapy with a physician. We compared the primary end point of LDL-C levels at 6 months and assessed whether any differences were attributable to changes in dietary fat intake, physical activity levels, or statin use. Participants (mean age, 59.4±5 years; 48% men; mean 10-year CHD risk, 8.5±4.1%) were allocated to receive either CRS (n=100) or + GRS (n=103). At the end of the study period, the + GRS group had a lower LDL-C than the CRS group (96.5±32.7 versus 105.9±33.3 mg/dL; P =0.04). Participants with high GRS had lower LDL-C levels (92.3±32.9 mg/dL) than CRS participants ( P =0.02) but not participants with low GRS (100.9±32.2 mg/dL; P =0.18). Statins were initiated more often in the + GRS group than in the CRS group (39% versus 22%, P <0.01). No significant differences in dietary fat intake and physical activity levels were noted. Conclusions— Disclosure of CHD risk estimates that incorporated genetic risk information led to lower LDL-C levels than disclosure of CHD risk based on conventional risk factors alone. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01936675.

We investigated whether family history (FHx) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) was associated with presence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The study cohort comprised of 696 patients with AAA (70±8 years, 84% men) and 2686 controls (68±10 years, 61% men) recruited from noninvasive vascular and stress electrocardiogram (ECG) laboratories at Mayo Clinic. AAA was defined as a transverse diameter of abdominal aorta ⩾ 3 cm or history of AAA repair. Controls were not known to have AAA. FHx was defined as having at least one first-degree relative with aortic aneurysm or with onset of ASCVD (coronary, cerebral or peripheral artery disease) before age 65 years. FHx of aortic aneurysm or ASCVD were each associated with presence of AAA after adjustment for age, sex, conventional risk factors and ASCVD: adjusted odds ratios (OR; 95% confidence interval): 2.17 (1.66–2.83, p < 0.01) and 1.31 (1.08–1.59, p < 0.01), respectively. FHx of ASCVD remained associated with AAA after additional adjustment for FHx of aortic aneurysm: adjusted OR: 1.27 (1.05–1.55, p = 0.01). FHx of ASCVD in multiple arterial locations was associated with higher odds of having AAA: the adjusted odds were 1.23 times higher for each additionally affected arterial location reported in the FHx (1.08–1.40, p = 0.01). Our results suggest both unique and shared environmental and genetic factors mediating susceptibility to AAA and ASCVD.

We investigated whether disclosure of coronary heart disease (CHD) genetic risk influences perceived personal control (PPC) and genetic counseling satisfaction (GCS). Participants (n = 207, age: 45–65 years) were randomized to receive estimated 10‐year risk of CHD based on a conventional risk score (CRS) with or without a genetic risk score (GRS). Risk estimates were disclosed by a genetic counselor who also reviewed how GRS altered risk in those randomized to CRS+GRS. Each participant subsequently met with a physician and then completed surveys to assess PPC and GCS. Participants who received CRS+GRS had higher PPC than those who received CRS alone although the absolute difference was small (25.2 ± 2.7 vs 24.1 ± 3.8, p = 0.04). A greater proportion of CRS+GRS participants had higher GCS scores (17.3 ± 5.3 vs 15.9 ± 6.3, p = 0.06). In the CRS+GRS group, PPC and GCS scores were not correlated with GRS. Within both groups, PPC and GCS scores were similar in patients with or without family history (p = NS). In conclusion, patients who received their genetic risk of CHD had higher PPC and tended to have higher GCS. Our findings suggest that disclosure of genetic risk of CHD together with conventional risk estimates is appreciated by patients. Whether this results in improved outcomes needs additional investigation.

How endurance training alters muscle lipid metabolism while preserving insulin sensitivity remains unclear. Because acute free fatty acid (FFA) elevation by lipid infusion reduces insulin sensitivity, we hypothesized that training status would alter accumulation of muscle triacylglycerol (TAG), diacylglycerol (DAG), ceramide, and acylcarnitine during acute FFA elevation. Trained ( n = 15) and sedentary ( n = 13) participants matched for age, sex, and BMI received either a 6-h infusion of lipid (20% Intralipid at 90 ml/h) or glycerol (2.25 g/100 ml at 90 ml/h) during a hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp. Muscle biopsies were taken at 0, 120, and 360 min after infusion initiation to measure intramyocellular concentrations of TAG, DAG, ceramides, and acylcarnitines by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Trained participants had a higher V̇o2 maxand insulin sensitivity than sedentary participants. The lipid infusion produced a comparable elevation of FFA (594 ± 90 μmol/l in trained, 721 ± 30 μmol/l in sedentary, P = 0.4) and a decline in insulin sensitivity (−44.7% trained vs. −47.2% sedentary, P = 0.89). In both groups, lipid infusion increased the linoleic and linolenic acid content of TAG without changing total TAG. In the sedentary group, lipid infusion increased total, oleic, and linoleic acid and linolenic acid content of DAG. Regardless of training status, lipid infusion did not alter total ceramide, saturated ceramide, palmitoyl-carnitine, or oleoyl-carnitine. We conclude that during acute FFA elevation, trained adults have a similar decline in insulin sensitivity with less accumulation of muscle DAG than sedentary adults, suggesting that lipid-induced insulin resistance can occur without elevation of total muscle DAG.