The genetic case for cardiorespiratory fitness as a clinical vital sign and the routine prescription of physical activity in healthcare

Abstract

Abstract Background Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and physical activity (PA) are well-established predictors of morbidity and all-cause mortality. However, CRF is not routinely measured and PA not routinely prescribed as part of standard healthcare. The American Heart Association (AHA) recently presented a scientific case for the inclusion of CRF as a clinical vital sign based on epidemiological and clinical observation. Here, we leverage genetic data in the UK Biobank (UKB) to strengthen the case for CRF as a vital sign and make a case for the prescription of PA. Methods We derived two CRF measures from the heart rate data collected during a submaximal cycle ramp test: CRF-vo2max, an estimate of the participants' maximum volume of oxygen uptake, per kilogram of body weight, per minute; and CRF-slope, an estimate of the rate of increase of heart rate during exercise. Average PA over a 7-day period was derived from a wrist-worn activity tracker. After quality control, 70,783 participants had data on the two derived CRF measures, and 89,683 had PA data. We performed genome-wide association study (GWAS) analyses by sex, and post-GWAS techniques to understand genetic architecture of the traits and prioritise functional genes for follow-up. Results We found strong evidence that genetic variants associated with CRF and PA influenced genetic expression in a relatively small set of genes in the heart, artery, lung, skeletal muscle and adipose tissue. These functionally relevant genes were enriched among genes known to be associated with coronary artery disease (CAD), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and Alzheimer’s disease (three of the top 10 causes of death in high-income countries) as well as Parkinson’s disease, pulmonary fibrosis, and blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory phenotypes. Genetic variation associated with lower CRF and PA was also correlated with several disease risk factors (including greater body mass index, body fat and multiple obesity phenotypes); a typical T2D profile (including higher insulin resistance, higher fasting glucose, impaired beta-cell function, hyperglycaemia, hypertriglyceridemia); increased risk for CAD and T2D; and a shorter lifespan. Conclusions Genetics supports three decades of evidence for the inclusion of CRF as a clinical vital sign. Given the genetic, clinical and epidemiological evidence linking CRF and PA to increased morbidity and mortality, regular measurement of CRF as a marker of health and routine prescription of PA could be a prudent strategy to support public health.