Search

Introduction Although observational data suggest a relationship between headache and smoking, there remain questions about causality. Smoking may increase headache risk, individuals may smoke to alleviate headaches, or smoking and headache may share common risk factors. Mendelian randomization (MR) is a method that uses genetic variants as instruments for making causal inferences about an exposure and an outcome. Aims and Methods First, we conducted logistic regression of observational data in UK Biobank assessing the association between smoking behaviors (smoking status, cigarettes per day amongst daily smokers, and lifetime smoking score) on the risk of self-reported headache (in the last month and for more than 3 months). Second, we used genetic instruments for smoking behaviors and headache (identified in independent genome-wide association studies [GWAS]) to perform bidirectional MR analysis. Results Observationally, there is a weak association between smoking behavior and experiencing headache, with increased cigarettes per day associated with increased headache risk. In the MR analysis, genetic liability to smoking initiation and lifetime smoking increased odds of headache in the last month but not odds of headaches lasting more than 3 months. In the opposite direction, there was weak evidence for higher genetic liability to headaches decreasing the chance of quitting. Conclusions There was weak evidence for a partially bidirectional causal relationship between smoking behaviors and headache in the last month. Given this relationship is distinct from smoking heaviness, it suggests headache and smoking may share common risk factors such as personality traits. Implications Using MR, this study addresses the uncertainty regarding the observed relationship between headache and smoking. There was evidence for weak causal effects of smoking initiation and lifetime smoking (but not smoking heaviness) on likelihood of experiencing headache in the last month, but not over a prolonged period of more than 3 months. Those with higher genetic liability to headaches were also less likely to successfully stop smoking. This partially bidirectional causal relationship distinct from smoking heaviness suggests that observed associations are unlikely due to biological effects of tobacco smoke exposure and may be explained by shared personality traits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meta-analyses combine the results of multiple studies of a common question. Approaches based on effect size estimates from each study are generally regarded as the most informative. However, these methods can only be used if comparable effect sizes can be computed from each study, and this may not be the case due to variation in how the studies were done or limitations in how their results were reported. Other methods, such as vote counting, are then used to summarize the results of these studies, but most of these methods are limited in that they do not provide any indication of the magnitude of effect. We propose a novel plot, the albatross plot, which requires only a 1-sided P value and a total sample size from each study (or equivalently a 2-sided P value, direction of effect and total sample size). The plot allows an approximate examination of underlying effect sizes and the potential to identify sources of heterogeneity across studies. This is achieved by drawing contours showing the range of effect sizes that might lead to each P value for given sample sizes, under simple study designs. We provide examples of albatross plots using data from previous meta-analyses, allowing for comparison of results, and an example from when a meta-analysis was not possible.

Background The prevalence of obesity has increased in the United Kingdom, and reliably measuring the impact on quality of life and the total healthcare cost from obesity is key to informing the cost-effectiveness of interventions that target obesity, and determining healthcare funding. Current methods for estimating cost-effectiveness of interventions for obesity may be subject to confounding and reverse causation. The aim of this study is to apply a new approach using mendelian randomisation for estimating the cost-effectiveness of interventions that target body mass index (BMI), which may be less affected by confounding and reverse causation than previous approaches. Methods and findings We estimated health-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and both primary and secondary healthcare costs for 310,913 men and women of white British ancestry aged between 39 and 72 years in UK Biobank between recruitment (2006 to 2010) and 31 March 2017. We then estimated the causal effect of differences in BMI on QALYs and total healthcare costs using mendelian randomisation. For this, we used instrumental variable regression with a polygenic risk score (PRS) for BMI, derived using a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of BMI, with age, sex, recruitment centre, and 40 genetic principal components as covariables to estimate the effect of a unit increase in BMI on QALYs and total healthcare costs. Finally, we used simulations to estimate the likely effect on BMI of policy relevant interventions for BMI, then used the mendelian randomisation estimates to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. A unit increase in BMI decreased QALYs by 0.65% of a QALY (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49% to 0.81%) per year and increased annual total healthcare costs by £42.23 (95% CI: £32.95 to £51.51) per person. When considering only health conditions usually considered in previous cost-effectiveness modelling studies (cancer, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes), we estimated that a unit increase in BMI decreased QALYs by only 0.16% of a QALY (95% CI: 0.10% to 0.22%) per year. We estimated that both laparoscopic bariatric surgery among individuals with BMI greater than 35 kg/m.sup.2, and restricting volume promotions for high fat, salt, and sugar products, would increase QALYs and decrease total healthcare costs, with net monetary benefits (at £20,000 per QALY) of £13,936 (95% CI: £8,112 to £20,658) per person over 20 years, and £546 million (95% CI: £435 million to £671 million) in total per year, respectively. The main limitations of this approach are that mendelian randomisation relies on assumptions that cannot be proven, including the absence of directional pleiotropy, and that genotypes are independent of confounders. Conclusions Mendelian randomisation can be used to estimate the impact of interventions on quality of life and healthcare costs. We observed that the effect of increasing BMI on health-related quality of life is much larger when accounting for 240 chronic health conditions, compared with only a limited selection. This means that previous cost-effectiveness studies have likely underestimated the effect of BMI on quality of life and, therefore, the potential cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce BMI., Author(s): Sean Harrison 1,2,*, Padraig Dixon 1,2, Hayley E. Jones 2, Alisha R. Davies 3, Laura D. Howe 1,2, Neil M. Davies 1,2,4 Introduction Between 1993 and 2017 in England, [...]

Background Mendelian randomization (MR) studies are susceptible to metadata errors (e.g. incorrect specification of the effect allele column) and other analytical issues that can introduce substantial bias into analyses. We developed a quality control (QC) pipeline for the Fatty Acids in Cancer Mendelian Randomization Collaboration (FAMRC) that can be used to identify and correct for such errors. Methods We collated summary association statistics from fatty acid and cancer genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and subjected the collated data to a comprehensive QC pipeline. We identified metadata errors through comparison of study-specific statistics to external reference data sets (the National Human Genome Research Institute-European Bioinformatics Institute GWAS catalogue and 1000 genome super populations) and other analytical issues through comparison of reported to expected genetic effect sizes. Comparisons were based on three sets of genetic variants: (i) GWAS hits for fatty acids, (ii) GWAS hits for cancer and (iii) a 1000 genomes reference set. Results We collated summary data from 6 fatty acid and 54 cancer GWAS. Metadata errors and analytical issues with the potential to introduce substantial bias were identified in seven studies (11.6%). After resolving metadata errors and analytical issues, we created a data set of 219 842 genetic associations with 90 cancer types, generated in analyses of 566 665 cancer cases and 1 622 374 controls. Conclusions In this large MR collaboration, 11.6% of included studies were affected by a substantial metadata error or analytical issue. By increasing the integrity of collated summary data prior to their analysis, our protocol can be used to increase the reliability of downstream MR analyses. Our pipeline is available to other researchers via the CheckSumStats package (https://github.com/MRCIEU/CheckSumStats). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]