Addiction biology · 2026
Optimizing Control Definitions in Opioid Use Disorder Genetic Research Using Electronic Health Records.
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Niarchou Maria, Tsai Ellen L, Jennings Mariela V, Faucon Annika, Lee Hyunjoon, Singh Kritika, Tubbs Justin D, Roussos Panos, Ge Tian, Crist Richard C, Vickers-Smith Rachel, Edenberg Howard, Moore Amy, Webb Bradley T, Johnson Eric O, PsycheMERGE Substance Use Disorder Workgroup, Kember Rachel L, Smoller Jordan W, Davis Lea K, Coombes Brandon J, Voloudakis Georgios, Burstein David, Mallard Travis T, Troiani Vanessa, Sanchez-Roige Sandra
Аннотация
Amidst the opioid crisis, understanding the genetic basis of opioid use disorder (OUD) is crucial for identifying biological mechanisms and intervention points. However, genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have been hampered by inadequate sample sizes and often the use of control populations not assessed for prior opioid exposure. Because opioid exposure is a prerequisite for the development of OUD, consideration of exposure history in controls is important. Electronic health record data (EHR) paired with genomic information allow a broader sampling of patients with OUD and exposed controls. We leveraged data across two healthcare systems to evaluate the impact of using controls not screened for opioid exposure ('generic') versus minimally opioid-exposed control ('exposed'). First, at the phenotypic level, we conducted phenome-wide association studies (PheWAS) to compare the medical comorbidity profiles of OUD cases when using generic versus exposed controls. While PheWAS results for OUD-related comorbidities were more pronounced when using the generic group, 83% of the disease associations were overlapping and of similar effect sizes. Second, at the genetic level, we conducted GWAS (cases vs. generic; cases vs. exposed) and assessed differences in genetic correlations and degrees of phenotypic misclassification. Genetic results were concordant across control groups based on heritability (generic: 0.16 ± 0.07 vs. 0.10 ± 0.07), associations with the coding OPRM1 variant rs1799971 (pgeneric = 8.83E-03 vs. pexposed = 1.83E-02) and genetic correlations with prior OUD GWAS (rg-generic = 0.83 ± 0.26 vs. rg-exposed = 0.78 ± 0.27). Although GWASs were limited by sample size (Ngeneric = 6269, Nexposed = 6365), compared to an independent OUD GWAS (N = 425 944), the dilution value for the two GWAS was not different from 1, suggesting no major impact of phenotypic misclassification. This study represents the first effort to enhance OUD genetic research through optimization of control definitions using EHR data. Generic controls ascertained within the US health systems, where exposure to prescription opioids is high, offer a practical alternative for genetic studies of OUD.