Search

A conventional Mendelian randomization analysis assesses the causal effect of a risk factor on an outcome by using genetic variants that are solely associated with the risk factor of interest as instrumental variables. However, in some cases, such as the case of triglyceride level as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, it may be difficult to find a relevant genetic variant that is not also associated with related risk factors, such as other lipid fractions. Such a variant is known as pleiotropic. In this paper, we propose an extension of Mendelian randomization that uses multiple genetic variants associated with several measured risk factors to simultaneously estimate the causal effect of each of the risk factors on the outcome. This “multivariable Mendelian randomization” approach is similar to the simultaneous assessment of several treatments in a factorial randomized trial. In this paper, methods for estimating the causal effects are presented and compared using real and simulated data, and the assumptions necessary for a valid multivariable Mendelian randomization analysis are discussed. Subject to these assumptions, we demonstrate that triglyceride-related pathways have a causal effect on the risk of coronary heart disease independent of the effects of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the manuscript "Multivariable Mendelian Randomization: The Use of Pleiotropic Genetic Variants to Estimate Causal Effects," by S. Burgess and S. G. Thompson, published in a 2015 issue.

Individual participant time-to-event data from multiple prospective epidemiologic studies enable detailed investigation into the predictive ability of risk models. Here we address the challenges in appropriately combining such information across studies. Methods are exemplified by analyses of log C-reactive protein and conventional risk factors for coronary heart disease in the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration, a collation of individual data from multiple prospective studies with an average follow-up duration of 9.8 years (dates varied). We derive risk prediction models using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis stratified by study and obtain estimates of risk discrimination, Harrell's concordance index, and Royston's discrimination measure within each study; we then combine the estimates across studies using a weighted meta-analysis. Various weighting approaches are compared and lead us to recommend using the number of events in each study. We also discuss the calculation of measures of reclassification for multiple studies. We further show that comparison of differences in predictive ability across subgroups should be based only on within-study information and that combining measures of risk discrimination from case-control studies and prospective studies is problematic. The concordance index and discrimination measure gave qualitatively similar results throughout. While the concordance index was very heterogeneous between studies, principally because of differing age ranges, the increments in the concordance index from adding log C-reactive protein to conventional risk factors were more homogeneous. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Mendelian randomization studies typically have low power. Where there are several valid candidate genetic instruments, precision can be gained by using all the instruments available. However, sporadically missing genetic data can offset this gain. The authors describe 4 Bayesian methods for imputing the missing data based on a missing-at-random assumption: multiple imputations, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) imputation, latent variables, and haplotype imputation. These methods are demonstrated in a simulation study and then applied to estimate the causal relation between C-reactive protein and each of fibrinogen and coronary heart disease, based on 3 SNPs in British Women’s Heart and Health Study participants assessed at baseline between May 1999 and June 2000. A complete-case analysis based on all 3 SNPs was found to be more precise than analyses using any 1 SNP alone. Precision is further improved by using any of the 4 proposed missing data methods; the improvement is equivalent to about a 25% increase in sample size. All methods gave similar results, which were apparently not overly sensitive to violation of the missing-at-random assumption. Programming code for the analyses presented is available online. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]