Jessica M B Rees1,2, Christopher N Foley3, Stephen Burgess1,3. 1. Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 2. Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 3. MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Factorial Mendelian randomization is the use of genetic variants to answer questions about interactions. Although the approach has been used in applied investigations, little methodological advice is available on how to design or perform a factorial Mendelian randomization analysis. Previous analyses have employed a 2 × 2 approach, using dichotomized genetic scores to divide the population into four subgroups as in a factorial randomized trial. METHODS: We describe two distinct contexts for factorial Mendelian randomization: investigating interactions between risk factors, and investigating interactions between pharmacological interventions on risk factors. We propose two-stage least squares methods using all available genetic variants and their interactions as instrumental variables, and using continuous genetic scores as instrumental variables rather than dichotomized scores. We illustrate our methods using data from UK Biobank to investigate the interaction between body mass index and alcohol consumption on systolic blood pressure. RESULTS: Simulated and real data show that efficiency is maximized using the full set of interactions between genetic variants as instruments. In the applied example, between 4- and 10-fold improvement in efficiency is demonstrated over the 2 × 2 approach. Analyses using continuous genetic scores are more efficient than those using dichotomized scores. Efficiency is improved by finding genetic variants that divide the population at a natural break in the distribution of the risk factor, or else divide the population into more equal-sized groups. CONCLUSIONS: Previous factorial Mendelian randomization analyses may have been underpowered. Efficiency can be improved by using all genetic variants and their interactions as instrumental variables, rather than the 2 × 2 approach.
BACKGROUND: Factorial Mendelian randomization is the use of genetic variants to answer questions about interactions. Although the approach has been used in applied investigations, little methodological advice is available on how to design or perform a factorial Mendelian randomization analysis. Previous analyses have employed a 2 × 2 approach, using dichotomized genetic scores to divide the population into four subgroups as in a factorial randomized trial. METHODS: We describe two distinct contexts for factorial Mendelian randomization: investigating interactions between risk factors, and investigating interactions between pharmacological interventions on risk factors. We propose two-stage least squares methods using all available genetic variants and their interactions as instrumental variables, and using continuous genetic scores as instrumental variables rather than dichotomized scores. We illustrate our methods using data from UK Biobank to investigate the interaction between body mass index and alcohol consumption on systolic blood pressure. RESULTS: Simulated and real data show that efficiency is maximized using the full set of interactions between genetic variants as instruments. In the applied example, between 4- and 10-fold improvement in efficiency is demonstrated over the 2 × 2 approach. Analyses using continuous genetic scores are more efficient than those using dichotomized scores. Efficiency is improved by finding genetic variants that divide the population at a natural break in the distribution of the risk factor, or else divide the population into more equal-sized groups. CONCLUSIONS: Previous factorial Mendelian randomization analyses may have been underpowered. Efficiency can be improved by using all genetic variants and their interactions as instrumental variables, rather than the 2 × 2 approach.
Authors: Stephen Burgess; Deborah J Thompson; Jessica M B Rees; Felix R Day; John R Perry; Ken K Ong Journal: Genetics Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 4.562
Authors: Brian A Ference; John J P Kastelein; Henry N Ginsberg; M John Chapman; Stephen J Nicholls; Kausik K Ray; Chris J Packard; Ulrich Laufs; Robert D Brook; Clare Oliver-Williams; Adam S Butterworth; John Danesh; George Davey Smith; Alberico L Catapano; Marc S Sabatine Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sarah J Lewis; Luisa Zuccolo; George Davey Smith; John Macleod; Santiago Rodriguez; Elizabeth S Draper; Margaret Barrow; Rosa Alati; Kapil Sayal; Susan Ring; Jean Golding; Ron Gray Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Brian A Ference; Jennifer G Robinson; Robert D Brook; Alberico L Catapano; M John Chapman; David R Neff; Szilard Voros; Robert P Giugliano; George Davey Smith; Sergio Fazio; Marc S Sabatine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joy Shi; Sonja A Swanson; Peter Kraft; Bernard Rosner; Immaculata De Vivo; Miguel A Hernán Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 4.860
Authors: Mark Gormley; Tom Dudding; Eleanor Sanderson; Richard M Martin; Steven Thomas; Jessica Tyrrell; Andrew R Ness; Paul Brennan; Marcus Munafò; Miranda Pring; Stefania Boccia; Andrew F Olshan; Brenda Diergaarde; Rayjean J Hung; Geoffrey Liu; George Davey Smith; Rebecca C Richmond Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Alice R Carter; Eleanor Sanderson; Gemma Hammerton; Rebecca C Richmond; George Davey Smith; Jon Heron; Amy E Taylor; Neil M Davies; Laura D Howe Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Verena Zuber; Nastasiya F Grinberg; Dipender Gill; Ichcha Manipur; Eric A W Slob; Ashish Patel; Chris Wallace; Stephen Burgess Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 11.043
Authors: April Hartley; Eleanor Sanderson; Lavinia Paternoster; Alexander Teumer; Robert C Kaplan; Jon H Tobias; Celia L Gregson Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 7.580