Ya-Nan Ou1, Yu-Xiang Yang2, Xue-Ning Shen2, Ya-Hui Ma1, Shi-Dong Chen2, Qiang Dong3, Lan Tan4, Jin-Tai Yu5. 1. Department of Neurology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266071, China. 2. Department of Neurology and Institute of Neurology, WHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in Neurosciences, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Neurology and Institute of Neurology, WHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in Neurosciences, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. dong_qiang@fudan.edu.cn. 4. Department of Neurology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266071, China. dr.tanlan@163.com. 5. Department of Neurology and Institute of Neurology, WHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in Neurosciences, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. jintai_yu@fudan.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that the use of antihypertensive medications (AHMs) is associated with a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD); however, these findings may be biased by confounding and reverse causality. We aimed to explore the effects of blood pressure (BP) and lowering systolic BP (SBP) via the protein targets of different AHMs on AD through a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach. METHODS: Genetic proxies from genome-wide association studies of BP traits and BP-lowering variants in genes encoding AHM targets were extracted. Estimates were calculated by inverse-variance weighted method as the main model. MR Egger regression and leave-one-out analysis were performed to identify potential violations. RESULTS: There was limited evidence that genetically predicted SBP/diastolic BP level affected AD risk based on 400/398 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), respectively (all P > 0.05). Suitable genetic variants for β-blockers (1 SNP), angiotensin receptor blockers (1 SNP), calcium channel blockers (CCBs, 45 SNPs), and thiazide diuretics (5 SNPs) were identified. Genetic proxies for CCB [odds ratio (OR) = 0.959, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.941-0.977, P = 3.92 × 10-6] and overall use of AHMs (OR = 0.961, 95% CI = 0.944-0.978, P = 5.74 × 10-6, SNPs = 52) were associated with a lower risk of AD. No notable heterogeneity and directional pleiotropy were identified (all P > 0.05). Additional analyses partly support these results. No single SNP was driving the observed effects. CONCLUSIONS: This MR analysis found evidence that genetically determined lowering BP was associated with a lower risk of AD and CCB was identified as a promising strategy for AD prevention.
BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that the use of antihypertensive medications (AHMs) is associated with a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD); however, these findings may be biased by confounding and reverse causality. We aimed to explore the effects of blood pressure (BP) and lowering systolic BP (SBP) via the protein targets of different AHMs on AD through a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach. METHODS: Genetic proxies from genome-wide association studies of BP traits and BP-lowering variants in genes encoding AHM targets were extracted. Estimates were calculated by inverse-variance weighted method as the main model. MR Egger regression and leave-one-out analysis were performed to identify potential violations. RESULTS: There was limited evidence that genetically predicted SBP/diastolic BP level affected AD risk based on 400/398 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), respectively (all P > 0.05). Suitable genetic variants for β-blockers (1 SNP), angiotensin receptor blockers (1 SNP), calcium channel blockers (CCBs, 45 SNPs), and thiazide diuretics (5 SNPs) were identified. Genetic proxies for CCB [odds ratio (OR) = 0.959, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.941-0.977, P = 3.92 × 10-6] and overall use of AHMs (OR = 0.961, 95% CI = 0.944-0.978, P = 5.74 × 10-6, SNPs = 52) were associated with a lower risk of AD. No notable heterogeneity and directional pleiotropy were identified (all P > 0.05). Additional analyses partly support these results. No single SNP was driving the observed effects. CONCLUSIONS: This MR analysis found evidence that genetically determined lowering BP was associated with a lower risk of AD and CCB was identified as a promising strategy for AD prevention.
Authors: Stephen Burgess; Brian A Ference; James R Staley; Daniel F Freitag; Amy M Mason; Sune F Nielsen; Peter Willeit; Robin Young; Praveen Surendran; Savita Karthikeyan; Thomas R Bolton; James E Peters; Pia R Kamstrup; Anne Tybjærg-Hansen; Marianne Benn; Anne Langsted; Peter Schnohr; Signe Vedel-Krogh; Camilla J Kobylecki; Ian Ford; Chris Packard; Stella Trompet; J Wouter Jukema; Naveed Sattar; Emanuele Di Angelantonio; Danish Saleheen; Joanna M M Howson; Børge G Nordestgaard; Adam S Butterworth; John Danesh Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Søren D Østergaard; Shubhabrata Mukherjee; Stephen J Sharp; Petroula Proitsi; Luca A Lotta; Felix Day; John R B Perry; Kevin L Boehme; Stefan Walter; John S Kauwe; Laura E Gibbons; Eric B Larson; John F Powell; Claudia Langenberg; Paul K Crane; Nicholas J Wareham; Robert A Scott Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Irene Pichler; Fabiola Del Greco M; Martin Gögele; Christina M Lill; Lars Bertram; Chuong B Do; Nicholas Eriksson; Tatiana Foroud; Richard H Myers; Michael Nalls; Margaux F Keller; Beben Benyamin; John B Whitfield; Peter P Pramstaller; Andrew A Hicks; John R Thompson; Cosetta Minelli Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Christopher A Lane; Josephine Barnes; Jennifer M Nicholas; Carole H Sudre; David M Cash; Thomas D Parker; Ian B Malone; Kirsty Lu; Sarah-Naomi James; Ashvini Keshavan; Heidi Murray-Smith; Andrew Wong; Sarah M Buchanan; Sarah E Keuss; Elizabeth Gordon; William Coath; Anna Barnes; John Dickson; Marc Modat; David Thomas; Sebastian J Crutch; Rebecca Hardy; Marcus Richards; Nick C Fox; Jonathan M Schott Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 44.182