Abstract
Background Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have been described as naturally occurring randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, MR often deviates from appropriate RCT design principles and relies heavily on two-sample approaches. We used data from the Million Veteran Program (MVP) to empirically evaluate the impact of study design choices and use of one-versus two-sample MR in a study of lipids and coronary artery disease.
Methods Our MR study included MVP participants of European descent with no history of coronary artery disease or contraindications to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-related therapies. We sequentially modified the eligibility criteria, study duration and follow-up to reflect common study design decisions for MR. In all designs, we used one- and two-sample approaches to estimate 10-year risks of coronary artery disease per 39 mg/dL increase in LDL-C or 15.6 mg/dL increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C).
Results For LDL-C, one-sample estimates varied across designs (odds ratios from 1.50 [95% CI: 1.34,1.68] to 2.23 [95% CI: 1.93,2.59]) and were most sensitive to the inclusion of prevalent outcome events in the analysis. Odds ratios obtained via two-sample MR were attenuated (1.13 [95% CI: 1.01,1.26] to 1.30 [95% CI: 1.15,1.46]). For HDL-C, we observed inverse or null relationships and estimates were qualitatively similar across all designs (odds ratios from 0.76 [95% CI: 0.68,0.86] to 0.93 [95% CI: 0.65,1.34]).
Conclusions MR estimates can, in practice, be impacted by decisions in study design due to trade-offs between different biases, and investigators should evaluate the sensitivity of their estimates to different design decisions.
Key Messages
The analogy between Mendelian randomization (MR) studies and randomized trials is challenged by the use of two-sample approaches and deviations in study design that arise due to time zero misalignments in MR studies.
MR estimates for the relationship between blood lipids and coronary heart disease in the Million Veteran Program were sensitive to certain study design decisions (such as whether prevalent outcome events were included in the analysis) and the use of one-sample versus two-sample approaches.
Investigators should consider the sensitivity of their estimates to different MR designs and its implications for trade-offs between different sources of bias.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by the Million Veteran Program (MVP#001) and Cooperative Studies Program (CSP#2032) from the Office of Research and Development, Veterans Health Administration.
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 study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki. The VA Central Institutional Review Board, Washington, DC, approved all study activities (protocol: MVP000, date of approval: 2010) and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data availability
MVP genomic and phenotypic data are currently only available to VA researchers through a research merit review process with VA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD).
