Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: A guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 362, Issue , 2018, Pages

  Davies, Neil M ^a,b   Holmes, Michael V ^a,c,d,e   Davey Smith, George ^a,b,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^e NIHR OXFORD BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; CONTROLLED STUDY; GENETIC VARIATION; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTOR; CAUSALITY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; HUMAN; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC HEALTH; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CAUSALITY; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EFFECT MODIFIER, EPIDEMIOLOGIC; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; HUMANS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PUBLIC HEALTH;

EID: 85050202541     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k601     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Davey Smith G, Hemani G. Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Hum Mol Genet 2014; 23(R1): R89-98. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddu328
2. Burgess S, Small DS, Thompson SG. A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization. Stat Methods Med Res Published Online First 2015; 17. doi: 10.1177/0962280215597579.
3. Haycock PC, Burgess S, Wade KH, Bowden J, Relton C, Davey Smith G. Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: the design, analysis, and interpretation of Mendelian randomization studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2016; 103: 965-78. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.115.118216
4. Davies NM, Davey Smith G, Windmeijer F, Martin RM. Issues in the reporting and conduct of instrumental variable studies: a systematic review. Epidemiology 2013; 24: 363-9. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31828abafb
5. Swanson SA, Hernán MA. Commentary: how to report instrumental variable analyses (suggestions welcome). Epidemiology 2013; 24: 370-4. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31828d0590
6. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. 'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease?. Int J Epidemiol 2003; 32: 1-22. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyg070
7. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. What can mendelian randomisation tell us about modifiable behavioural and environmental exposures?. BMJ 2005; 330: 1076-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7499.1076
8. Evans DM, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: new applications in the coming age of hypothesis-free causality. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2015; 16: 327-50. doi: 10.1146/annurevgenom-090314-050016
9. Burgess S, Butterworth A, Malarstig A, Thompson SG. Use of Mendelian randomisation to assess potential benefit of clinical intervention. BMJ 2012; 345: e7325-7325. doi: 10.1136/bmj. e7325
10. Takagi S, Baba S, Iwai N, et al. The aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 gene is a risk factor for hypertension in Japanese but does not alter the sensitivity to pressor effects of alcohol: the Suita study. Hypertens Res 2001; 24: 365-70. doi: 10.1291/hypres.24.365
11. Chen L, Davey Smith G, Harbord RM, Lewis SJ. Alcohol intake and blood pressure: a systematic review implementing a Mendelian randomization approach. PLoS Med 2008; 5: e52. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050052
12. Hernán M, Robins J. Causal Inference. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2018, (forthcoming).
13. Burgess S, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization: methods for using genetic variants in causal estimation. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group 2015.
14. Imbens GW, Angrist JD. Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 1994; 62: 467. doi: 10.2307/2951620.
15. Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, Sterne JAC, Timpson N, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med 2008; 27: 1133-63. doi: 10.1002/sim.3034
16. Burgess S, Thompson SG. Use of allele scores as instrumental variables for Mendelian randomization. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42: 1134-44. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt093
17. Pierce BL, Burgess S. Efficient design for Mendelian randomization studies: subsample and 2-sample instrumental variable estimators. Am J Epidemiol 2013; 178: 1177-84. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt084
18. Inoue A, Solon G. Two-sample instrumental variables estimators. Rev Econ Stat 2010; 92: 557-61. doi: 10.1162/REST-a-00011.
19. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol 2015; 44: 512-25. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv080
20. Hausman JA. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 1978; 46: 1251-71. doi: 10.2307/1913827.
21. Altman DG, Bland JM. Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 2003; 326: 219. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7382.219
22. Angrist JD, Pischke JS. Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist's companion. Princeton Univ Pr, 2009.
23. Hemani G, Zheng J, Wade KH, et al. The MR-base enables causal inference across the phenome. eLife [forthcoming].
24. Michailidou K, Lindström S, Dennis J, et al, NBCS Collaborators, ABCTB Investigators, ConFab/AOCS Investigators. Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci. Nature 2017; 551: 92-4. doi: 10.1038/nature24284
25. Nikpay M, Goel A, Won HH, et al. A comprehensive 1, 000 Genomesbased genome-wide association meta-Analysis of coronary artery disease. Nat Genet 2015; 47: 1121-30. doi: 0.1038/ng.3396
26. Li M, Li Y, Weeks O, et al, CHARGE Glycemic-T2D Working Group, CHARGE Blood Pressure Working Group. SOS2 and acp1 loci identified through large-scale exome chip analysis regulate kidney development and function. J Am Soc Nephrol 2017; 28: 981-94. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2016020131
27. Scott RA, Scott LJ, Mägi R, et al. DIAbetes Genetics Replication And Meta-Analysis (DIAGRAM) Consortium. an expanded genome-wide association study of type 2 diabetes in Europeans. Diabetes 2017; 66: 2888-902. doi: 10.2337/db16-1253
28. Felix JF, Bradfield JP, Monnereau C, et al, Bone Mineral Density in Childhood Study (BMDCS), Early Genetics and Lifecourse Epidemiology (EAGLE) consortium, Early Growth Genetics (EGG)Consortium, Bone Mineral Density in Childhood Study BMDCS. Genome-wide association analysis identifies three new susceptibility loci for childhood body mass index. Hum Mol Genet 2016; 25: 389-403. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddv472
29. Horikoshi M, Beaumont RN, Day FR, et al, CHARGE Consortium Hematology Working Group. Genome-wide associations for birth weight and correlations with adult disease. Nature 2016; 538: 248-52. doi: 10.1038/nature19806
30. Yengo L, Sidorenko J, Kemper KE, et al. Meta-Analysis of genomewide association studies for height and body mass index in ~700, 000 individuals of European ancestry. bioRxiv 2018, doi: 10.1101/274654.
31. Liu DJ, Peloso GM, Yu H, et al, Charge Diabetes Working Group, EPIC-InterAct Consortium, EPIC-CVD Consortium, GOLD Consortium, VA Million Veteran Program. Exome-wide association study of plasma lipids in 300, 000 individuals. Nat Genet 2017; 49: 1758-66. doi: 10.1038/ng.3977
32. Neurology Working Group of the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE) Consortium, the Stroke Genetics Network (SiGN), and the International Stroke Genetics Consortium (ISGC). Identification of additional risk loci for stroke and small vessel disease: a meta-Analysis of genome-wide association studies. Lancet Neurol 2016; 15: 695-707. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(16)00102-2
33. Shungin D, Winkler TW, Croteau-Chonka DC, et al, ADIPOGen Consortium, CARDIOGRAMplusC4D Consortium, CKDGen Consortium, GEFOS Consortium, GENIE Consortium, GLGC, ICBP, International Endogene Consortium, LifeLines Cohort Study, MAGIC Investigators, MuTHER Consortium, PAGE Consortium, ReproGen Consortium. New genetic loci link adipose and insulin biology to body fat distribution. Nature 2015; 518: 187-96. doi: 10.1038/nature14132
34. Wray NR, Ripke S, Mattheisen M, et al. Genome-wide association analyses identify 44 risk variants and refine the genetic architecture of major depression. Nat Genet 2018; 50: 668-81. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0090-3
35. Sullivan PF, Agrawal A, Bulik CM, et al, Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. Psychiatric genomics: an update and an agenda. Am J Psychiatry 2018; 175: 15-27. doi: 10.1176/appi. ajp.2017.17030283
36. Okbay A, Beauchamp JP, Fontana MA, et al, LifeLines Cohort Study. Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature 2016; 533: 539-42. doi: 10.1038/nature17671
37. Staley JR, Blackshaw J, Kamat MA, et al. PhenoScanner: a database of human genotype-phenotype associations. Bioinformatics 2016; 32: 3207-9. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw373
38. MacArthur J, Bowler E, Cerezo M, et al. The new NHGRI-EBI Catalog of published genome-wide association studies (GWAS Catalog). Nucleic Acids Res 2017; 45(D1): D896-901. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw1133
39. Burgess S, Davies NM, Thompson SG. Bias due to participant overlap in two-sample Mendelian randomization. Genet Epidemiol 2016; 40: 597-608. doi: 10.1002/gepi.21998
40. Cohen JC, Boerwinkle E, Mosley TH Jr, Hobbs HH. Sequence variations in PCSK9, low LDL, and protection against coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 1264-72. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa054013
41. Abifadel M, Varret M, Rabès J-P, et al. Mutations in PCSK9 cause autosomal dominant hypercholesterolemia. Nat Genet 2003; 34: 154-6. doi: 10.1038/ng1161
42. Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Keech AC, et al, FOURIER Steering Committee and Investigators. Evolocumab and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 1713-22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1615664
43. American College of Cardiology. ODYSSEY outcomes: results suggest use of PCSK9 inhibitor reduces CV events, LDL-C in ACS patients. 10 Mar 2018. http://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2018/03/05/15/53/sat-9am-odyssey-outcomes-cvoutcomes-with-Alirocumab-After-Acs-Acc-2018
44. Benn M, Nordestgaard BG. From genome-wide association studies to Mendelian randomization: Novel opportunities for understanding cardiovascular disease causality, pathogenesis, prevention, and treatment. Cardiovasc Res 2018. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvy045
45. Holmes MV, Asselbergs FW, Palmer TM, et al, UCLEB consortium. Mendelian randomization of blood lipids for coronary heart disease. Eur Heart J 2015; 36: 539-50. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht571
46. Hartwig FP, Davey Smith G, Bowden J. Robust inference in summary data Mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption. Int J Epidemiol 2017; 46: 1985-98. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx102
47. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, Burgess S. consistent estimation in mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet Epidemiol 2016; 40: 304-14. doi: 10.1002/gepi.21965
48. Di Angelantonio E, Sarwar N, Perry P, et al, Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. Major lipids, apolipoproteins, and risk of vascular disease. JAMA 2009; 302: 1993-2000. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1619
49. Kang H, Zhang A, Cai TT, et al. Instrumental variables estimation with some invalid instruments and its application to mendelian randomization. J Am Stat Assoc 2016; 111: 132-44. doi: 10.1080/01 621459.2014.994705.
50. Pickrell JK, Berisa T, Liu JZ, Ségurel L, Tung JY, Hinds DA. Detection and interpretation of shared genetic influences on 42 human traits. Nat Genet 2016; 48: 709-17. doi: 10.1038/ng.3570
51. Staiger D, Stock J. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 1997; 65: 557-86. doi: 10.2307/2171753.
52. Davey Smith G, Lawlor DA, Harbord R, Timpson N, Day I, Ebrahim S. Clustered environments and randomized genes: a fundamental distinction between conventional and genetic epidemiology. PLoS Med 2007; 4: e352. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040352
53. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Walter S, Glymour MM. Commentary: building an evidence base for mendelian randomization studies: assessing the validity and strength of proposed genetic instrumental variables. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42: 328-31. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt023
54. Glymour MM, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Robins JM. Credible Mendelian randomization studies: approaches for evaluating the instrumental variable assumptions. Am J Epidemiol 2012; 175: 332-9. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwr323
55. Boef AGC, Dekkers OM, le Cessie S. Mendelian randomization studies: a review of the approaches used and the quality of reporting. Int J Epidemiol 2015; 44: 496-511. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv071
56. Holmes MV, Dale CE, Zuccolo L, et al, InterAct Consortium. Association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease: Mendelian randomisation analysis based on individual participant data. BMJ 2014; 349: g4164-4164. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g4164
57. Rosenbaum PR. The consquences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment. J R Stat Soc Ser Gen 1984; 147: 656. doi: 10.2307/2981697.
58. Giugliano RP, Pedersen TR, Park J-G, et al, FOURIER Investigators. Clinical efficacy and safety of achieving very low LDL-cholesterol concentrations with the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab: a prespecified secondary analysis of the FOURIER trial. Lancet 2017; 390: 1962-71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32290-0
59. Lyall DM, Celis-Morales C, Ward J, et al. Association of body mass index with cardiometabolic disease in the uk biobank: a mendelian randomization study. JAMA Cardiol 2017; 2: 882-9. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2016.5804
60. Voight BF, Peloso GM, Orho-Melander M, et al. Plasma HDL cholesterol and risk of myocardial infarction: a mendelian randomisation study. Lancet 2012; 380: 572-80. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60312-2
61. Boyle EA, Li YI, Pritchard JK. An expanded view of complex traits: from polygenic to omnigenic. Cell 2017; 169: 1177-86. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.038
62. Merino J, Leong A, Posner DC, et al. Genetically driven hyperglycemia increases risk of coronary artery disease separately from type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 687-93. doi: 10.2337/dc16-2625
63. Corbin LJ, Richmond RC, Wade KH, et al. BMI as a modifiable risk factor for type 2 diabetes: refining and understanding causal estimates using Mendelian randomization. Diabetes 2016; 65: 3002-7. doi: 10.2337/db16-0418
64. Ference BA, Yoo W, Alesh I, et al. Effect of long-Term exposure to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol beginning early in life on the risk of coronary heart disease: a Mendelian randomization analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60: 2631-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.09.017
65. Nelson MR, Tipney H, Painter JL, et al. The support of human genetic evidence for approved drug indications. Nat Genet 2015; 47: 856-60. doi: 10.1038/ng.3314
66. Holmes MV, Ala-Korpela M, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization in cardiometabolic disease: challenges in evaluating causality. Nat Rev Cardiol 2017; 14: 577-90. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2017.78
67. Hansen LP. Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econom J Econom Soc 1982; 50: 1029-54. doi: 10.2307/1912775.
68. Greco M FD, Minelli C, Sheehan NA, Thompson JR. Detecting pleiotropy in Mendelian randomisation studies with summary data and a continuous outcome. Stat Med 2015; 34: 2926-40. doi: 10.1002/sim.6522
69. Ding M, Huang T, Bergholdt HK, Nordestgaard BG, Ellervik C, Qi L, CHARGE Consortium. Dairy consumption, systolic blood pressure, and risk of hypertension: Mendelian randomization study. BMJ 2017; 356: j1000. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j1000
70. Palmer TM, Nordestgaard BG, Benn M, et al. Association of plasma uric acid with ischaemic heart disease and blood pressure: mendelian randomisation analysis of two large cohorts. BMJ 2013; 347: f4262-4262. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4262
71. Afzal S, Brøndum-Jacobsen P, Bojesen SE, Nordestgaard BG. Genetically low vitamin D concentrations and increased mortality: Mendelian randomisation analysis in three large cohorts. BMJ 2014; 349: g6330-6330. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6330
72. Wensley F, Gao P, Burgess S, et al, C Reactive Protein Coronary Heart Disease Genetics Collaboration (CCGC). Association between C reactive protein and coronary heart disease: mendelian randomisation analysis based on individual participant data. BMJ 2011; 342: d548-548. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d548
73. Dale CE, Fatemifar G, Palmer TM, et al, UCLEB Consortium; METASTROKE Consortium. Causal associations of adiposity and body fat distribution with coronary heart disease, stroke subtypes, and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Mendelian randomization analysis. Circulation 2017; 135: 2373-88. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.026560
74. Sedgwick P. Understanding P values. BMJ 2014; 349: g4550. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g4550
75. Lawlor DA, Tilling K, Davey Smith G. Triangulation in aetiological epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 2016; 45: 1866-86.
76. Irons DE, Iacono WG, Oetting WS, McGue M. Developmental trajectory and environmental moderation of the effect of ALDH2 polymorphism on alcohol use. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2012; 36: 1882-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2012.01809.x
77. Mokry LE, Ross S, Ahmad OS, et al. Vitamin D and risk of multiple sclerosis: a Mendelian randomization study. PLoS Med 2015; 12: e1001866. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001866
78. VanderWeele TJ, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Cornelis M, Kraft P. Methodological challenges in mendelian randomization. Epidemiology 2014; 25: 427-35. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000081
79. Swanson SA, Tiemeier H, Ikram MA, Hernán MA. Nature as a trialist?. Deconstructing the analogy between Mendelian Randomization and randomized trials. Epidemiology 2017; 28: 653-9. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000699
80. Spitz MR, Amos CI, Dong Q, Lin J, Wu X. The CHRNA5-A3 region on chromosome 15q24-25.1 is a risk factor both for nicotine dependence and for lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 1552-6. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn363
81. Paternoster L, Tilling K, Davey Smith G. Genetic epidemiology and Mendelian randomization for informing disease therapeutics: Conceptual and methodological challenges. PLoS Genet 2017; 13: e1006944. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006944
82. Nelson CP, Hamby SE, Saleheen D, et al, CARDIoGRAM+C4D Consortium. Genetically determined height and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1608-18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1404881
83. Nüesch E, Dale C, Palmer TM, et al, Adult height, coronary heart disease and stroke: a multi-locus Mendelian randomization meta-Analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2016; 45: 1927-37. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv074
84. Davey Smith G, Paternoster L, Relton C. When will Mendelian randomization become relevant for clinical practice and public health?. JAMA 2017; 317: 589-91. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.21189
85. Walker VM, Davey Smith G, Davies NM, Martin RM. Mendelian randomization: a novel approach for the prediction of adverse drug events and drug repurposing opportunities. Int J Epidemiol 2017; 46: 2078-89. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx207
86. Fordyce CB, Roe MT, Ahmad T, et al. Cardiovascular drug development: is it dead or just hibernating?. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: 1567-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.016