Search

Mendelian randomization-Egger (MR-Egger) is an analysis method for Mendelian randomization using summarized genetic data. MR-Egger consists of three parts: (1) a test for directional pleiotropy, (2) a test for a causal effect, and (3) an estimate of the causal effect. While conventional analysis methods for Mendelian randomization assume that all genetic variants satisfy the instrumental variable assumptions, the MR-Egger method is able to assess whether genetic variants have pleiotropic effects on the outcome that differ on average from zero (directional pleiotropy), as well as to provide a consistent estimate of the causal effect, under a weaker assumption-the InSIDE (INstrument Strength Independent of Direct Effect) assumption. In this paper, we provide a critical assessment of the MR-Egger method with regard to its implementation and interpretation. While the MR-Egger method is a worthwhile sensitivity analysis for detecting violations of the instrumental variable assumptions, there are several reasons why causal estimates from the MR-Egger method may be biased and have inflated Type 1 error rates in practice, including violations of the InSIDE assumption and the influence of outlying variants. The issues raised in this paper have potentially serious consequences for causal inferences from the MR-Egger approach. We give examples of scenarios in which the estimates from conventional Mendelian randomization methods and MR-Egger differ, and discuss how to interpret findings in such cases.

The added value of incorporating information from repeated blood pressure and cholesterol measurements to predict cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk has not been rigorously assessed. We used data on 191,445 adults from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration (38 cohorts from 17 countries with data encompassing 1962-2014) with more than 1 million measurements of systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Over a median 12 years of follow-up, 21,170 CVD events occurred. Risk prediction models using cumulative mean values of repeated measurements and summary measures from longitudinal modeling of the repeated measurements were compared with models using measurements from a single time point. Risk discrimination (C-index) and net reclassification were calculated, and changes in C-indices were meta-analyzed across studies. Compared with the single-time-point model, the cumulative means and longitudinal models increased the C-index by 0.0040 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.0023, 0.0057) and 0.0023 (95% CI: 0.0005, 0.0042), respectively. Reclassification was also improved in both models; compared with the single-time-point model, overall net reclassification improvements were 0.0369 (95% CI: 0.0303, 0.0436) for the cumulative-means model and 0.0177 (95% CI: 0.0110, 0.0243) for the longitudinal model. In conclusion, incorporating repeated measurements of blood pressure and cholesterol into CVD risk prediction models slightly improves risk prediction.

Background Strategies for screening and intervening to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in primary care settings need to be assessed in terms of both their costs and long-term health effects. We undertook a literature review to investigate the methodologies used. Methods In a framework of developing a new health-economic model for evaluating different screening strategies for primary prevention of CVD in Europe (EPIC-CVD project), we identified seven key modeling issues and reviewed papers published between 2000 and 2013 to assess how they were addressed. Results We found 13 relevant health-economic modeling studies of screening to prevent CVD in primary care. The models varied in their degree of complexity, with between two and 33 health states. Programmes that screen the whole population by a fixed cut-off (e.g., predicted 10-year CVD risk >20 %) identify predominantly elderly people, who may not be those most likely to benefit from long-term treatment. Uncertainty and model validation were generally poorly addressed. Few studies considered the disutility of taking drugs in otherwise healthy individuals or the budget impact of the programme. Conclusions Model validation, incorporation of parameter uncertainty, and sensitivity analyses for assumptions made are all important components of model building and reporting, and deserve more attention. Complex models may not necessarily give more accurate predictions. Availability of a large enough source dataset to reliably estimate all relevant input parameters is crucial for achieving credible results. Decision criteria should consider budget impact and the medicalization of the population as well as cost-effectiveness thresholds. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10198-015-0753-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Mendelian randomization analyses are often performed using summarized data. The causal estimate from a one‐sample analysis (in which data are taken from a single data source) with weak instrumental variables is biased in the direction of the observational association between the risk factor and outcome, whereas the estimate from a two‐sample analysis (in which data on the risk factor and outcome are taken from non‐overlapping datasets) is less biased and any bias is in the direction of the null. When using genetic consortia that have partially overlapping sets of participants, the direction and extent of bias are uncertain. In this paper, we perform simulation studies to investigate the magnitude of bias and Type 1 error rate inflation arising from sample overlap. We consider both a continuous outcome and a case‐control setting with a binary outcome. For a continuous outcome, bias due to sample overlap is a linear function of the proportion of overlap between the samples. So, in the case of a null causal effect, if the relative bias of the one‐sample instrumental variable estimate is 10% (corresponding to an F parameter of 10), then the relative bias with 50% sample overlap is 5%, and with 30% sample overlap is 3%. In a case‐control setting, if risk factor measurements are only included for the control participants, unbiased estimates are obtained even in a one‐sample setting. However, if risk factor data on both control and case participants are used, then bias is similar with a binary outcome as with a continuous outcome. Consortia releasing publicly available data on the associations of genetic variants with continuous risk factors should provide estimates that exclude case participants from case‐control samples.

Objective: There is uncertainty about the direction and magnitude of the associations between parity, breastfeeding and the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). We examined the separate and combined associations of parity and breastfeeding practices with the incidence of CHD later in life among women in a large, pan-European cohort study. Methods: Data were used from European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-CVD, a case–cohort study nested within the EPIC prospective study of 520,000 participants from 10 countries. Information on reproductive history was available for 14,917 women, including 5138 incident cases of CHD. Using Prentice-weighted Cox regression separately for each country followed by a random-effects meta-analysis, we calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for CHD, after adjustment for age, study centre and several socioeconomic and biological risk factors. Results: Compared with nulliparous women, the adjusted HR was 1.19 (95% CI: 1.01–1.41) among parous women; HRs were higher among women with more children (e.g., adjusted HR: 1.95 (95% CI: 1.19–3.20) for women with five or more children). Compared with women who did not breastfeed, the adjusted HR was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.52–0.98) among women who breastfed. For childbearing women who never breastfed, the adjusted HR was 1.58 (95% CI: 1.09–2.30) compared with nulliparous women, whereas for childbearing women who breastfed, the adjusted HR was 1.19 (95% CI: 0.99–1.43). Conclusion: Having more children was associated with a higher risk of CHD later in life, whereas breastfeeding was associated with a lower CHD risk. Women who both had children and breastfed did have a non-significantly higher risk of CHD.

Instrumental variable analysis is an approach for obtaining causal inferences on the effect of an exposure (risk factor) on an outcome from observational data. It has gained in popularity over the past decade with the use of genetic variants as instrumental variables, known as Mendelian randomization. An instrumental variable is associated with the exposure, but not associated with any confounder of the exposure–outcome association, nor is there any causal pathway from the instrumental variable to the outcome other than via the exposure. Under the assumption that a single instrumental variable or a set of instrumental variables for the exposure is available, the causal effect of the exposure on the outcome can be estimated. There are several methods available for instrumental variable estimation; we consider the ratio method, two-stage methods, likelihood-based methods, and semi-parametric methods. Techniques for obtaining statistical inferences and confidence intervals are presented. The statistical properties of estimates from these methods are compared, and practical advice is given about choosing a suitable analysis method. In particular, bias and coverage properties of estimators are considered, especially with weak instruments. Settings particularly relevant to Mendelian randomization are prioritized in the paper, notably the scenario of a continuous exposure and a continuous or binary outcome.

Finding individual-level data for adequately-powered Mendelian randomization analyses may be problematic. As publicly-available summarized data on genetic associations with disease outcomes from large consortia are becoming more abundant, use of published data is an attractive analysis strategy for obtaining precise estimates of the causal effects of risk factors on outcomes. We detail the necessary steps for conducting Mendelian randomization investigations using published data, and present novel statistical methods for combining data on the associations of multiple (correlated or uncorrelated) genetic variants with the risk factor and outcome into a single causal effect estimate. A two-sample analysis strategy may be employed, in which evidence on the gene-risk factor and gene-outcome associations are taken from different data sources. These approaches allow the efficient identification of risk factors that are suitable targets for clinical intervention from published data, although the ability to assess the assumptions necessary for causal inference is diminished. Methods and guidance are illustrated using the example of the causal effect of serum calcium levels on fasting glucose concentrations. The estimated causal effect of a 1 standard deviation (0.13 mmol/L) increase in calcium levels on fasting glucose (mM) using a single lead variant from the CASR gene region is 0.044 (95 % credible interval -0.002, 0.100). In contrast, using our method to account for the correlation between variants, the corresponding estimate using 17 genetic variants is 0.022 (95 % credible interval 0.009, 0.035), a more clearly positive causal effect.

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.

IMPORTANCE: The prevalence of cardiometabolic multimorbidity is increasing. OBJECTIVE: To estimate reductions in life expectancy associated with cardiometabolic multimorbidity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Age- and sex-adjusted mortality rates and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using individual participant data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration (689 300 participants; 91 cohorts; years of baseline surveys: 1960-2007; latest mortality follow-up: April 2013; 128 843 deaths). The HRs from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration were compared with those from the UK Biobank (499 808 participants; years of baseline surveys: 2006-2010; latest mortality follow-up: November 2013; 7995 deaths). Cumulative survival was estimated by applying calculated age-specific HRs for mortality to contemporary US age-specific death rates. EXPOSURES: A history of 2 or more of the following: diabetes mellitus, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: All-cause mortality and estimated reductions in life expectancy. RESULTS: In participants in the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration without a history of diabetes, stroke, or MI at baseline (reference group), the all-cause mortality rate adjusted to the age of 60 years was 6.8 per 1000 person-years. Mortality rates per 1000 person-years were 15.6 in participants with a history of diabetes, 16.1 in those with stroke, 16.8 in those with MI, 32.0 in those with both diabetes and MI, 32.5 in those with both diabetes and stroke, 32.8 in those with both stroke and MI, and 59.5 in those with diabetes, stroke, and MI. Compared with the reference group, the HRs for all-cause mortality were 1.9 (95% CI, 1.8-2.0) in participants with a history of diabetes, 2.1 (95% CI, 2.0-2.2) in those with stroke, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.9-2.2) in those with MI, 3.7 (95% CI, 3.3-4.1) in those with both diabetes and MI, 3.8 (95% CI, 3.5-4.2) in those with both diabetes and stroke, 3.5 (95% CI, 3.1-4.0) in those with both stroke and MI, and 6.9 (95% CI, 5.7-8.3) in those with diabetes, stroke, and MI. The HRs from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration were similar to those from the more recently recruited UK Biobank. The HRs were little changed after further adjustment for markers of established intermediate pathways (eg, levels of lipids and blood pressure) and lifestyle factors (eg, smoking, diet). At the age of 60 years, a history of any 2 of these conditions was associated with 12 years of reduced life expectancy and a history of all 3 of these conditions was associated with 15 years of reduced life expectancy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Mortality associated with a history of diabetes, stroke, or MI was similar for each condition. Because any combination of these conditions was associated with multiplicative mortality risk, life expectancy was substantially lower in people with multimorbidity.

OBJECTIVE Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) is a marker of subclinical organ damage and predicts cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in the general population. It has also been associated with vascular risk in people with diabetes. However, the association of CIMT change in repeated examinations with subsequent CVD events is uncertain, and its use as a surrogate end point in clinical trials is controversial. We aimed at determining the relation of CIMT change to CVD events in people with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In a comprehensive meta-analysis of individual participant data, we collated data from 3,902 adults (age 33–92 years) with type 2 diabetes from 21 population-based cohorts. We calculated the hazard ratio (HR) per standard deviation (SD) difference in mean common carotid artery intima-media thickness (CCA-IMT) or in CCA-IMT progression, both calculated from two examinations on average 3.6 years apart, for each cohort, and combined the estimates with random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS Average mean CCA-IMT ranged from 0.72 to 0.97 mm across cohorts in people with diabetes. The HR of CVD events was 1.22 (95% CI 1.12–1.33) per SD difference in mean CCA-IMT, after adjustment for age, sex, and cardiometabolic risk factors. Average mean CCA-IMT progression in people with diabetes ranged between −0.09 and 0.04 mm/year. The HR per SD difference in mean CCA-IMT progression was 0.99 (0.91–1.08). CONCLUSIONS Despite reproducing the association between CIMT level and vascular risk in subjects with diabetes, we did not find an association between CIMT change and vascular risk. These results do not support the use of CIMT progression as a surrogate end point in clinical trials in people with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Instrumental variable methods can estimate the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome using observational data. Many instrumental variable methods assume that the exposure-outcome relation is linear, but in practice this assumption is often in doubt, or perhaps the shape of the relation is a target for investigation. We investigate this issue in the context of Mendelian randomization, the use of genetic variants as instrumental variables. METHODS: Using simulations, we demonstrate the performance of a simple linear instrumental variable method when the true shape of the exposure-outcome relation is not linear. We also present a novel method for estimating the effect of the exposure on the outcome within strata of the exposure distribution. This enables the estimation of localized average causal effects within quantile groups of the exposure or as a continuous function of the exposure using a sliding window approach. RESULTS: Our simulations suggest that linear instrumental variable estimates approximate a population-averaged causal effect. This is the average difference in the outcome if the exposure for every individual in the population is increased by a fixed amount. Estimates of localized average causal effects reveal the shape of the exposure-outcome relation for a variety of models. These methods are used to investigate the relations between body mass index and a range of cardiovascular risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Nonlinear exposure-outcome relations should not be a barrier to instrumental variable analyses. When the exposure-outcome relation is not linear, either a population-averaged causal effect or the shape of the exposure-outcome relation can be estimated.

BACKGROUND: Ageing populations may demand more blood transfusions, but the blood supply could be limited by difficulties in attracting and retaining a decreasing pool of younger donors. One approach to increase blood supply is to collect blood more frequently from existing donors. If more donations could be safely collected in this manner at marginal cost, then it would be of considerable benefit to blood services. National Health Service (NHS) Blood and Transplant in England currently allows men to donate up to every 12 weeks and women to donate up to every 16 weeks. In contrast, some other European countries allow donations as frequently as every 8 weeks for men and every 10 weeks for women. The primary aim of the INTERVAL trial is to determine whether donation intervals can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply whilst maintaining the health of donors. METHODS/DESIGN: INTERVAL is a randomised trial of whole blood donors enrolled from all 25 static centres of NHS Blood and Transplant. Recruitment of about 50,000 male and female donors started in June 2012 and was completed in June 2014. Men have been randomly assigned to standard 12-week versus 10-week versus 8-week inter-donation intervals, while women have been assigned to standard 16-week versus 14-week versus 12-week inter-donation intervals. Sex-specific comparisons will be made by intention-to-treat analysis of outcomes assessed after two years of intervention. The primary outcome is the number of blood donations made. A key secondary outcome is donor quality of life, assessed using the Short Form Health Survey. Additional secondary endpoints include the number of 'deferrals' due to low haemoglobin (and other factors), iron status, cognitive function, physical activity, and donor attitudes. A comprehensive health economic analysis will be undertaken. DISCUSSION: The INTERVAL trial should yield novel information about the effect of inter-donation intervals on blood supply, acceptability, and donors' physical and mental well-being. The study will generate scientific evidence to help formulate blood collection policies in England and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24760606, 25 January 2012.