ABSTRACT
Introduction Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) often adjust for covariates, correct for medication use, or select on medication users. If these summary statistics are used in two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses, estimates may be biased. We used simulations to investigate how GWAS adjustment, correction and selection affects these estimates and performed an analysis in UK Biobank to provide an empirical example.
Methods We simulated six GWASs: no adjustment for a covariate, correction for medication use, or selection on medication users; adjustment only; selection only; correction only; both adjustment and selection; and both adjustment and correction. We then ran two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses using these GWASs to evaluate bias. We also performed equivalent GWASs using empirical data from 318,147 participants in UK Biobank with systolic blood pressure as the exposure and body mass index as the covariate and ran two-sample Mendelian randomization with coronary heart disease as the outcome.
Results The simulation showed that estimates from GWASs with selection can produce biased two-sample Mendelian randomization estimates. Yet, we observed relatively little difference between empirical estimates of the effect of systolic blood pressure on coronary artery disease across the six scenarios.
Conclusions Given the potential for bias from using GWASs with selection on Mendelian randomization estimates demonstrated in our simulation, and the reduced sample size of these GWAS, this approach should be deprioritized. However, based on our empirical results, using adjusted, corrected or selected GWASs is unlikely to make a large difference to two-sample Mendelian randomization estimates in practice.
Competing Interest Statement
DG is employed part-time by Novo Nordisk.
Clinical Trial
This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under Application Number 16729.
Funding Statement
VMW, ARC, SH and NMD are members of the Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, which is supported by the Medical Research Council and the University of Bristol [MC_UU_00011/1 and MC_UU_00011/4]. DG is supported by the Wellcome Trust 4i Programme (203928/Z/16/Z) and British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence (RE/18/4/34215) at Imperial College London. NMD is also supported by a Norwegian Research Council [grant number 295989].
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under Application Number 16729.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Empirical data is available on application from UK Biobank. Simulated data is available from GitHub: https://github.com/venexia/MR-GWAS-consequences.