Georgiou AN, Zagkos L, Markozannes G, Chalitsios CV, Asimakopoulos AG, Xu W, Wang L, Mesa‐Eguiagaray I, Zhou X, Loizidou EM, Kretsavos N, Theodoratou E, Gill D, Burgess S, Evangelou E, Tsilidis KK, Tzoulaki I. Appraising the Causal Role of Risk Factors in Coronary Artery Disease and Stroke: A Systematic Review of Mendelian Randomization Studies.
J Am Heart Assoc 2023;
12:e029040. [PMID:
37804188 PMCID:
PMC7615320 DOI:
10.1161/jaha.122.029040]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2023] [Accepted: 06/27/2023] [Indexed: 10/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mendelian randomization (MR) offers a powerful approach to study potential causal associations between exposures and health outcomes by using genetic variants associated with an exposure as instrumental variables. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarize previous MR studies and to evaluate the evidence for causality for a broad range of exposures in relation to coronary artery disease and stroke. METHODS AND RESULTS MR studies investigating the association of any genetically predicted exposure with coronary artery disease or stroke were identified. Studies were classified into 4 categories built on the significance of the main MR analysis results and its concordance with sensitivity analyses, namely, robust, probable, suggestive, and insufficient. Studies reporting associations that did not perform any sensitivity analysis were classified as nonevaluable. We identified 2725 associations eligible for evaluation, examining 535 distinct exposures. Of them, 141 were classified as robust, 353 as probable, 110 as suggestive, and 926 had insufficient evidence. The most robust associations were observed for anthropometric traits, lipids, and lipoproteins and type 2 diabetes with coronary artery; disease and clinical measurements with coronary artery disease and stroke; and thrombotic factors with stroke. CONCLUSIONS Despite the large number of studies that have been conducted, only a limited number of associations were supported by robust evidence. Approximately half of the studies reporting associations presented an MR sensitivity analysis along with the main analysis that further supported the causality of associations. Future research should focus on more thorough assessments of sensitivity MR analyses and further assessments of mediation effects or nonlinearity of associations.
Collapse