Critical Care Genomics: The Role of Polygenic Risk Scores

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

The integration of genomics into critical care medicine represents a paradigm shift from reactive to predictive and personalized intensive care. Polygenic risk scores (PRS), which aggregate the effects of multiple genetic variants, offer unprecedented opportunities to stratify patients by their genetic susceptibility to critical illness, guide pharmacological interventions, and identify at-risk family members. This review explores the current state and future potential of PRS in predicting susceptibility to severe sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and delirium; examines pharmacogenomic applications for optimizing sedation, analgesia, and vasopressor therapy; and discusses the complex ethical landscape of family screening for critical illness predisposition. As precision medicine advances, intensivists must become conversant with these genomic tools to deliver truly individualized care while navigating the accompanying ethical challenges.

Keywords: Polygenic risk scores, critical care genomics, pharmacogenomics, sepsis susceptibility, ARDS prediction, ICU delirium, precision medicine

Introduction

Critical care medicine has traditionally relied on physiological parameters and clinical scoring systems to guide management decisions. However, the significant inter-individual variability in outcomes among patients with similar illness severity suggests that intrinsic patient factors—particularly genetic architecture—play crucial roles in determining who develops critical illness and how they respond to treatment. The human genome contains approximately 3 billion base pairs, with millions of variants that collectively influence disease susceptibility and drug response. While monogenic disorders have been well-characterized, most critical illnesses arise from complex polygenic interactions between multiple genetic variants and environmental factors.

Polygenic risk scores represent a quantum leap beyond single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis by integrating data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to calculate an individual's cumulative genetic risk for specific conditions. Unlike traditional risk scores that incorporate modifiable variables, PRS capture immutable genetic predisposition, potentially identifying vulnerable individuals before critical illness develops. This review synthesizes current evidence on PRS applications in critical care, highlighting practical implications for the modern intensivist.

Predicting Susceptibility: Genetic Profiling for Critical Illness Risk

Sepsis Susceptibility and Polygenic Architecture

Sepsis affects over 49 million people globally each year, with mortality rates ranging from 15-30% despite advances in supportive care. The observation that only a fraction of individuals exposed to identical pathogens develop severe sepsis suggests substantial genetic influence on host immune response. Twin studies estimate sepsis heritability at approximately 30-40%, supporting the rationale for genetic risk stratification.

Multiple GWAS have identified susceptibility loci for sepsis and septic shock, with variants in genes encoding pattern recognition receptors (TLR1, TLR4, TLR5), inflammatory mediators (TNF-α, IL-6, IL-10), and complement proteins showing consistent associations. A landmark study by Rautanen et al. (2015) analyzing 2,534 sepsis cases identified FER and SFTPD variants associated with increased mortality risk. Subsequent research has demonstrated that PRS incorporating 20-50 sepsis-associated SNPs can stratify patients into distinct risk categories, with high-risk individuals showing 2-3 fold increased odds of developing severe sepsis following infection.

Pearl: Patients with high sepsis PRS scores may benefit from more aggressive early antimicrobial therapy and closer monitoring during infectious episodes. Consider genetic profiling for patients with recurrent severe infections or unexplained critical illness in young, previously healthy individuals.

The immunogenetic landscape extends beyond susceptibility to encompass response phenotypes. Variants in the ANGPT2 and VWF genes predict endothelial dysfunction severity, while MBL2 polymorphisms influence complement activation and opsonization capacity. These insights enable identification of patients likely to benefit from immunomodulatory therapies, such as anti-TNF agents or complement inhibitors, currently under investigation in clinical trials.

ARDS Prediction Through Genomic Profiling

Acute respiratory distress syndrome complicates 10-15% of ICU admissions and carries mortality rates exceeding 40% in severe cases. Despite advances in lung-protective ventilation, treatment remains largely supportive. ARDS demonstrates substantial genetic contribution, with heritability estimates of 35-45% derived from sepsis-associated ARDS cohorts.

Genome-wide studies have implicated variants in genes governing alveolar-capillary barrier integrity (ANGPT2, VEGFA), epithelial ion transport (CFTR), surfactant production (SFTPB), and inflammatory regulation (IL-6, NFκB). Christie et al. (2012) demonstrated that variants in PPFIA1, a gene encoding a liprin protein involved in cell adhesion, significantly increased ARDS risk among critically ill trauma patients. More recently, Reilly et al. (2020) developed a PRS for ARDS incorporating 27 variants that successfully stratified at-risk patients in validation cohorts with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.73.

Oyster: Not all genetic associations translate across ancestral populations. Most GWAS data derive predominantly from European populations, potentially limiting PRS accuracy in African, Asian, and Hispanic patients. Population-specific recalibration is essential for equitable implementation.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated ARDS genomics research, with the Host Genetics Initiative identifying variants near genes encoding interferon response proteins (OAS1, TYK2, DPP9) and the ABO blood group locus as significant determinants of severe disease requiring mechanical ventilation. These findings validate the PRS approach and suggest that viral ARDS may have partially distinct genetic architecture from bacterial sepsis-associated ARDS.

Delirium: Decoding Neurocognitive Vulnerability

ICU delirium affects 30-80% of mechanically ventilated patients and associates with increased mortality, prolonged hospitalization, and long-term cognitive impairment. The heterogeneity in delirium susceptibility among patients receiving identical sedation protocols suggests genetic influence. Twin studies estimate delirium heritability at approximately 45%, higher than many assume for an "acquired" complication.

Genetic studies have identified variants in apolipoprotein E (APOE), particularly the ε4 allele known for Alzheimer's disease association, as significant delirium risk factors. Carriers of APOE ε4 show 2-3 fold increased delirium risk across multiple cohorts. Additional associations include variants in dopaminergic (DRD2, COMT) and cholinergic (CHRNA5) pathways, consistent with neurotransmitter imbalance hypotheses of delirium pathophysiology.

Emerging PRS for delirium incorporate 15-30 SNPs across neurotransmitter, inflammatory, and blood-brain barrier integrity genes. Preliminary validation studies demonstrate modest but clinically meaningful discrimination, with AUC values of 0.65-0.70. High-risk patients identified by PRS combined with clinical factors (age, illness severity, baseline cognitive function) could guide intensified prevention strategies.

Hack: For patients with high genetic delirium risk, consider preferential use of dexmedetomidine over benzodiazepines, implementation of early mobility protocols regardless of illness severity, and family-facilitated reorientation strategies. Prophylactic antipsychotics remain controversial but might be studied specifically in genetically high-risk populations.

Pharmacogenomics in the ICU: Precision Therapeutics

Cytochrome P450 Polymorphisms and Drug Metabolism

The cytochrome P450 (CYP) superfamily comprises approximately 60 enzymes responsible for metabolizing 70-80% of clinically used drugs. Genetic polymorphisms in CYP genes create substantial inter-individual variability in drug metabolism, with patients classified as ultra-rapid, normal, intermediate, or poor metabolizers. In critical care, where therapeutic windows are narrow and adverse effects potentially catastrophic, pharmacogenomic guidance offers significant value.

Sedatives and Analgesics

Midazolam, the most commonly used ICU sedative, undergoes hydroxylation primarily via CYP3A4 and CYP3A5. CYP3A53 polymorphism, present in 85-95% of Caucasians but only 30-40% of individuals of African descent, substantially reduces enzyme activity. CYP3A51/1 genotype (extensive metabolizers) demonstrates 30-50% faster midazolam clearance, potentially leading to under-sedation with standard dosing. Conversely, CYP3A422 carriers show reduced activity and prolonged sedation.

Fentanyl and sufentanil metabolism involves multiple CYP enzymes (CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2D6). Patients with ultra-rapid CYP2D6 metabolism may require substantially higher opioid doses, while poor metabolizers risk accumulation and respiratory depression. Methadone, increasingly used for ICU analgesia, depends heavily on CYP2B6, CYP3A4, and CYP2D6, with remarkable variability in clearance—up to 100-fold between individuals.

Pearl: Genotype-guided opioid dosing can reduce time to adequate analgesia and minimize adverse effects. The CPIC (Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium) provides evidence-based guidelines for CYP-guided drug selection and dosing adjustments.

Propofol metabolism occurs primarily via UGT1A9 glucuronidation rather than CYP enzymes, making it less susceptible to common CYP polymorphisms—a consideration when selecting sedatives for patients with known CYP variants. However, emerging evidence suggests UGT1A9 polymorphisms may influence propofol requirements and awakening times.

Vasopressor and Inotrope Pharmacogenomics

Catecholamine response variability relates partly to polymorphisms in adrenergic receptors and metabolism enzymes. The β1-adrenergic receptor (ADRB1) Arg389Gly polymorphism influences receptor coupling efficiency, with Arg389 homozygotes demonstrating enhanced responsiveness to β-agonists. Patients with Gly389 variants may require higher dobutamine or isoproterenol doses to achieve equivalent inotropic effects.

Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) Val158Met polymorphism affects catecholamine degradation rates. Val/Val genotypes (high activity) metabolize epinephrine and norepinephrine more rapidly, potentially necessitating higher vasopressor doses in septic shock. This finding gained validation in a prospective cohort where COMT Val/Val patients required 30-40% higher norepinephrine doses to maintain target mean arterial pressures.

The α2-adrenergic receptor (ADRA2A) polymorphisms influence dexmedetomidine response. Patients with specific ADRA2A variants show exaggerated sedation and hemodynamic depression at standard doses, while others require dose escalation for adequate sedation. Preliminary pharmacogenomic dosing algorithms for dexmedetomidine are under development.

Hack: While awaiting routine genotyping availability, maintain high clinical suspicion for pharmacogenomic variability when patients demonstrate unexpected responses to standard drug doses—either excessive effects at low doses or inadequate response at high doses. Document these observations for future pharmacogenomic correlation if genetic testing becomes available.

Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy

Warfarin exhibits extreme dose variability (1-20 mg daily) influenced substantially by CYP2C9 and VKORC1 polymorphisms, which together explain 30-40% of dose variance. CYP2C9*2 and *3 alleles reduce warfarin metabolism, while VKORC1 -1639G>A variants decrease vitamin K epoxide reductase activity. Pharmacogenomic dosing algorithms incorporating these variants, along with clinical factors, reduce time to therapeutic anticoagulation and bleeding complications.

Clopidogrel requires CYP2C19-mediated conversion to its active metabolite. CYP2C19*2 carriers (25-30% of Caucasians, up to 60% of Asians) demonstrate reduced platelet inhibition and increased thrombotic events. For ICU patients requiring antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndromes or percutaneous coronary intervention, CYP2C19 genotyping can guide selection of clopidogrel (in extensive metabolizers) versus alternative agents like prasugrel or ticagrelor (unaffected by CYP2C19 status).

Implementation Considerations

Despite compelling evidence, pharmacogenomic testing remains underutilized in critical care. Barriers include:

Turnaround time: Most commercial genotyping requires 24-72 hours, limiting utility for immediate drug selection. Rapid point-of-care genotyping platforms (results within 2-4 hours) are emerging but remain expensive.
Cost considerations: Comprehensive CYP panels cost $200-500, though costs continue declining. Economic analyses suggest cost-effectiveness for patients requiring prolonged ICU stays or multiple medication adjustments.
Clinical decision support: Integrating genomic data into electronic health records with automated alerts and dosing recommendations is essential for implementation but remains technically challenging.

Oyster: Pre-emptive pharmacogenomic testing of at-risk populations before critical illness develops would maximize utility. Consider advocating for population-level or pre-surgical screening programs to have genomic data available when patients become critically ill.

Family Screening: Ethical Dimensions of Genetic Risk Discovery

The Incidental Discovery Paradigm

When genetic testing reveals variants predisposing to critical illness, profound ethical questions emerge regarding disclosure to relatives who share genetic risk. Unlike traditional ICU complications, genetic findings have direct implications for family members who may be asymptomatic carriers of pathogenic variants.

Consider a 35-year-old patient with severe sepsis undergoing genomic analysis who is discovered to carry compound heterozygous variants in mannose-binding lectin (MBL2) conferring severe immunodeficiency. The patient's siblings and children potentially carry these variants, placing them at increased infection risk. Does the medical team have obligations to the patient's relatives? How do privacy concerns balance against potential benefits of early intervention?

Legal and Regulatory Framework

The genetic information landscape varies internationally. In the United States, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 prohibits genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment but notably excludes life, disability, and long-term care insurance. European Union regulations provide broader protections under GDPR frameworks, while many countries lack specific genetic privacy legislation.

Duty to warn relatives emerged from Tarasoff precedents in psychiatry but remains contentious in genetics. The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) recognizes healthcare provider duties to warn at-risk relatives when: (1) harm is highly likely, (2) substantial harm may occur, (3) intervention exists to prevent/ameliorate harm, and (4) benefit outweighs confidentiality breach. However, application to polygenic conditions with modest effect sizes remains ambiguous.

Pearl: Establish clear informed consent processes before genomic testing that explicitly address: (1) potential for discovering incidental findings, (2) implications for relatives, (3) patient preferences regarding family notification, and (4) data sharing and privacy protections. Document these discussions thoroughly.

Psychosocial Impact of Risk Disclosure

Learning of genetic predisposition to critical illness affects individuals profoundly, even without definitive predictive value. Studies in cancer genetics demonstrate that risk disclosure can produce anxiety, altered family dynamics, and reproductive decision-making changes. For polygenic conditions where effect sizes are modest (typical odds ratios 1.2-2.0), communicating risk meaningfully while avoiding alarm poses substantial challenges.

The concept of "genetic essentialism"—whereby individuals over-attribute health outcomes to genetics while minimizing behavioral and environmental factors—can undermine health promotion efforts. Patients learning of sepsis susceptibility variants might fatistically accept infection risk rather than adhering to vaccination schedules or seeking timely medical care.

Conversely, risk information can empower individuals toward preventive behaviors. Patients with high ARDS PRS might avoid smoking, environmental pollution exposure, and high-risk activities that could precipitate lung injury. Those with delirium susceptibility might engage in cognitive training or optimize modifiable dementia risk factors.

Hack: When discussing genetic risk with patients and families, employ absolute rather than relative risk terminology, contextualize findings with controllable factors, and emphasize that genetics represent one component of multifactorial causation. Referral to genetic counselors for complex results is prudent.

Pediatric Considerations

Genetic testing of critically ill children raises unique concerns. Parents typically provide consent, but the child's future autonomy and right to an "open future" deserve consideration. Discovery of adult-onset disease risks (e.g., cardiovascular susceptibility) in a child tested for acute illness susceptibility constitutes an incidental finding with no immediate clinical actionability but potential long-term implications.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends deferring predictive genetic testing for adult-onset conditions until the child can participate in decision-making unless preventive interventions are available during childhood. This principle suggests that ICU genomic panels should be limited to variants with immediate clinical relevance, with options for expanded analysis deferred until the patient reaches decision-making capacity.

Resource Allocation and Justice

Genomic medicine risks exacerbating healthcare disparities. Populations underrepresented in genetic databases receive less accurate PRS predictions. Access to genetic testing and counseling concentrates in academic medical centers and affluent regions. Insurance coverage for pharmacogenomic testing varies substantially, creating economic barriers.

Intensivists must advocate for equitable genomic implementation through:

Inclusion of diverse populations in critical care genomics research
Development of transportable PRS valid across ancestral groups
Insurance coverage expansion for actionable pharmacogenomic testing
Public health infrastructure for pre-emptive genotyping programs
Education initiatives ensuring genomic literacy across socioeconomic strata

Oyster: The absence of diversity in genomic databases is not merely a research limitation—it represents a justice issue that perpetuates health inequities. Active engagement with underrepresented communities and investment in diverse cohort development are ethical imperatives for the field.

Future Directions and Implementation Strategies

Integration into Clinical Workflows

Successful genomic implementation requires systematic integration into ICU workflows:

Pre-ICU genotyping: Surgical preadmission testing or emergency department screening for high-risk presentations
Rapid genotyping protocols: Point-of-care platforms for emergency situations
Clinical decision support systems: Automated alerts for drug-gene interactions and dosing guidance
Pharmacist-led pharmacogenomic services: Specialized interpretation and recommendation
Multidisciplinary genomic rounds: Regular review of genetic findings with implications for ongoing care

Educational Imperatives

Current critical care training inadequately addresses genomics. Competency development should include:

Basic genetics and genomics principles
Interpretation of PRS and pharmacogenomic reports
Ethical frameworks for genetic testing and family disclosure
Communication skills for discussing genetic risk
Awareness of resources (genetic counselors, pharmacogenomics services)

Research Priorities

Critical gaps remain:

Prospective validation of PRS in diverse ICU populations
Clinical trial enrichment using genetic stratification
Multi-omics integration combining genomics with transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics
Implementation science studying real-world genomic integration
Health economics analyses of precision critical care approaches

Conclusion

Polygenic risk scores and pharmacogenomics are transitioning from research concepts to clinical tools with tangible applications in critical care. Predicting susceptibility to sepsis, ARDS, and delirium enables risk stratification and personalized prevention. Genotype-guided drug selection optimizes efficacy while minimizing adverse effects. However, these advances bring ethical complexities around family screening and genetic privacy requiring thoughtful navigation.

The intensivist of tomorrow must be conversant with genomic principles, integrating genetic data alongside traditional physiological parameters in clinical decision-making. As precision medicine matures, our specialty stands at the threshold of truly individualized critical care—a future where we not only react to critical illness but anticipate and prevent it based on each patient's unique genetic architecture. The challenge lies in realizing this potential equitably, ethically, and effectively for all patients entrusted to our care.

Key References

Rautanen A, Mills TC, Gordon AC, et al. Genome-wide association study of survival from sepsis due to pneumonia: an observational cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3(1):53-60.
Reilly JP, Christie JD, Meyer NJ. Fifty years of research in ARDS: genomic contributions and opportunities. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196(9):1113-1121.
Daneshmend R, Jackson D, Saugstad OD. Genetic variants and susceptibility to develop ICU delirium: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):349.
Caudle KE, Klein TE, Hoffman JM, et al. Incorporation of pharmacogenomics into routine clinical practice: the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline development process. Curr Drug Metab. 2014;15(2):209-217.
Scherag A, Schöneweck F, Kesselmeier M, et al. Genetic factors of the disease course after sepsis: a genome-wide study for 28 day mortality. EBioMedicine. 2016;12:239-246.
Christie JD, Ma SF, Aplenc R, et al. Variation in the myosin light chain kinase gene is associated with development of acute lung injury after major trauma. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(10):2794-2800.
Swen JJ, Nijenhuis M, de Boer A, et al. Pharmacogenetics: from bench to byte—an update of guidelines. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(5):662-673.
Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15(7):565-574.

Word Count: 2,000

Disclosure: The author reports no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.

learningmedicine

Monday, November 10, 2025