A combination of strongly associated prothrombotic single nucleotide polymorphisms could efficiently predict venous thrombosis risk

Abstract

BackgroundVenous thrombosis (VT) is multifactorial trait that contributes to the global burden of cardiovascular diseases. Although abundant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) provoke the susceptibility of an individual to VT, research has found that the five most strongly associated SNPs, namely, rs6025 (F5 Leiden), rs2066865 (FGG), rs2036914 (F11), rs8176719 (ABO), and rs1799963 (F2), play the greatest role. Association and risk prediction models are rarely established by using merely the five strongly associated SNPs. This study aims to explore the combined VT risk predictability of the five SNPs and well-known non-genetic VT risk factors such as aging and obesity in the Hungarian population.MethodsSNPs were genotyped in the VT group (n = 298) and control group (n = 400). Associations were established using standard genetic models. Genetic risk scores (GRS) [unweighted GRS (unGRS), weighted GRS (wGRS)] were also computed. Correspondingly, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) for genetic and non-genetic risk factors were estimated to explore their VT risk predictability in the study population.Resultsrs6025 was the most prevalent VT risk allele in the Hungarian population. Its risk allele frequency was 3.52-fold higher in the VT group than that in the control group [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 3.52, 95% CI: 2.50–4.95]. Using all genetic models, we found that rs6025 and rs2036914 remained significantly associated with VT risk after multiple correction testing was performed. However, rs8176719 remained statistically significant only in the multiplicative (AOR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.07–1.64) and genotypic models (AOR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.14–2.73). In addition, rs2066865 lost its significant association with VT risk after multiple correction testing was performed. Conversely, the prothrombin mutation (rs1799963) did not show any significant association. The AUC of Leiden mutation (rs6025) showed better discriminative accuracy than that of other SNPs (AUC = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.57–0.66). The wGRS was a better predictor for VT than the unGRS (AUC = 0.67 vs. 0.65). Furthermore, combining genetic and non-genetic VT risk factors significantly increased the AUC to 0.89 with statistically significant differences (Z = 3.924, p < 0.0001).ConclusionsOur study revealed that the five strongly associated SNPs combined with non-genetic factors could efficiently predict individual VT risk susceptibility. The combined model was the best predictor of VT risk, so stratifying high-risk individuals based on their genetic profiling and well-known non-modifiable VT risk factors was important for the effective and efficient utilization of VT risk preventive and control measures. Furthermore, we urged further study that compares the VT risk predictability in the Hungarian population using the formerly discovered VT SNPs with the novel strongly associated VT SNPs.