Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-05-2017 | METHODS

Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method

Authors: Stephen Burgess, Simon G. Thompson

Published in: European Journal of Epidemiology | Issue 5/2017

Abstract

Mendelian randomization-Egger (MR-Egger) is an analysis method for Mendelian randomization using summarized genetic data. MR-Egger consists of three parts: (1) a test for directional pleiotropy, (2) a test for a causal effect, and (3) an estimate of the causal effect. While conventional analysis methods for Mendelian randomization assume that all genetic variants satisfy the instrumental variable assumptions, the MR-Egger method is able to assess whether genetic variants have pleiotropic effects on the outcome that differ on average from zero (directional pleiotropy), as well as to provide a consistent estimate of the causal effect, under a weaker assumption—the InSIDE (INstrument Strength Independent of Direct Effect) assumption. In this paper, we provide a critical assessment of the MR-Egger method with regard to its implementation and interpretation. While the MR-Egger method is a worthwhile sensitivity analysis for detecting violations of the instrumental variable assumptions, there are several reasons why causal estimates from the MR-Egger method may be biased and have inflated Type 1 error rates in practice, including violations of the InSIDE assumption and the influence of outlying variants. The issues raised in this paper have potentially serious consequences for causal inferences from the MR-Egger approach. We give examples of scenarios in which the estimates from conventional Mendelian randomization methods and MR-Egger differ, and discuss how to interpret findings in such cases.

Available only for authorised users

Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. ‘Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(1):1–22. doi:10.1093/ije/dyg070.CrossRef

Burgess S, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization: methods for using genetic variants in causal estimation. London: Chapman & Hall; 2015.

Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33(1):30–42. doi:10.1093/ije/dyh132.CrossRef

Didelez V, Sheehan N. Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007;16(4):309–30. doi:10.1177/0962280206077743.CrossRefPubMed

Greenland S. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29(4):722–9. doi:10.1093/ije/29.4.722.CrossRefPubMed

Clarke PS, Windmeijer F. Instrumental variable estimators for binary outcomes. J Am Stat Assoc. 2012;107(500):1638–52. doi:10.1080/01621459.2012.734171.CrossRef

Burgess S, Butterworth AS, Thompson JR. Beyond Mendelian randomization: how to interpret evidence of shared genetic predictors. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.001.

VanderWeele T, Tchetgen Tchetgen E, Cornelis M, Kraft P. Methodological challenges in Mendelian randomization. Epidemiology. 2014;25(3):427–35. doi:10.1097/ede.0000000000000081.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(2):512–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

White J, Sofat R, Hemani G, et al. Plasma urate and coronary heart disease: Mendelian randomisation analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015;4:327–36. doi:10.1016/s2213-8587(15)00386-1.CrossRef

11.

Tyrrell J, Jones SE, Beaumont R, Astley CM, Lovell R, Yaghootkar H, Tuke M, Ruth KS, Freathy RM, Hirschhorn JN, et al. Height, body mass index, and socioeconomic status: Mendelian randomisation study in UK Biobank. Br Med J. 2016;352:i582. doi:10.1136/bmj.i582.CrossRef

12.

Jones SE, Tyrrell J, Wood AR, Beaumont RN, Ruth KS, Tuke MA, Yaghootkar H, Hu Y, Teder-Laving M, Hayward C, et al. Genome-wide association analyses in \(\ge \) 119,000 individuals identifies thirteen morningness and two sleep duration loci. bioRxiv. 2016. doi:10.1101/031369.

13.

Bonilla C, Lewis SJ, Martin RM, Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Neal DE, Eeles R, Easton D, Kote-Jarai Z, Al Olama AA, et al. Pubertal development and prostate cancer risk: Mendelian randomization study in a population-based cohort. BMC Med. 2016;14:66. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0602-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Burgess S, Dudbridge F, Thompson SG. Combining information on multiple instrumental variables in Mendelian randomization: comparison of allele score and summarized data methods. Stat Med. 2016;35(11):1880–906. doi:10.1002/sim.6835.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Kang H, Zhang A, Cai T, Small D. Instrumental variables estimation with some invalid instruments, and its application to Mendelian randomisation. J Am Stat Assoc. 2015;. doi:10.1080/01621459.2014.994705.

16.

Lawlor D, Harbord R, Sterne J, Timpson N, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med. 2008;27(8):1133–63. doi:10.1002/sim.3034.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Burgess S, Butterworth AS, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol. 2013;37(7):658–65. doi:10.1002/gepi.21758.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Thomas D, Lawlor D, Thompson J. Re: Estimation of bias in nongenetic observational studies using “Mendelian triangulation” by Bautista, et al. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17(7):511–3. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2006.12.005.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Johnson T. Efficient calculation for multi-SNP genetic risk scores. Technical Report, The Comprehensive R Archive Network 2013. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gtx/vignettes/ashg2012.pdf. Accessed 19 Nov 2014.

20.

Burgess S, Dudbridge F, Thompson SG. Re: “Multivariable Mendelian randomization: the use of pleiotropic genetic variants to estimate causal effects”. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(4):290–1.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Thompson S, Sharp S. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–708.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kolesár M, Chetty R, Friedman J, Glaeser E, Imbens G. Identification and inference with many invalid instruments. J Bus Econ Stat. 2014;. doi:10.1080/07350015.2014.978175.

23.

CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium. A comprehensive1000 genomes-based genome-wide association meta-analysis of coronary artery disease. Nat Genet. 2015;47:1121–30. doi:10.1038/ng.3396.

24.

Burgess S. Plasma urate and coronary heart disease: fingerprint match, but no smoking gun. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00425-8.

25.

Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, Burgess S. Consistent estimation in Mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet Epidemiol. 2016;40(4):304–14. doi:10.1002/gepi.21965.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chapter 34: generality of the basic inverse-variance method. Chichester: Wiley; 2009.CrossRef

27.

Dobson A. An introduction to generalized linear models. London: Chapman & Hall; 2001. doi:10.1201/9781420057683.CrossRef

28.

Burgess S. Sample size and power calculations in Mendelian randomization with a single instrumental variable and a binary outcome. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(3):922–9. doi:10.1093/ije/dyu005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Bowden J, Del Greco F, Minelli C, Davey Smith G, Sheehan NA, Thompson JR. Assessing the suitability of summary data for Mendelian randomization analyses using MR-Egger regression: the role of the \(I^2\) statistic. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;. doi:10.1093/ije/dyw220.

30.

Locke AE, Kahali B, Berndt SI, Justice AE, Pers TH, Day FR, Powell C, Vedantam S, Buchkovich ML, Yang J, et al. Genetic studies of body mass index yield new insights for obesity biology. Nature. 2015;518(7538):197–206. doi:10.1038/nature14177.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Corbin LJ, Richmond RC, Wade KH, Burgess S, Bowden J, Smith GD, Timpson NJ. Body mass index as a modifiable risk factor for type 2 diabetes: refining and understanding causal estimates using Mendelian randomisation. Diabetes. 2016;. doi:10.2337/db16-0418.PubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Burgess S, Bowden J, Fall T, Ingelsson E, Thompson S. Sensitivity analyses for robust causal inference from Mendelian randomization analyses with multiple genetic variants. Epidemiology. 2017;28(1):30–42. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000559.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Pickrell J, Berisa T, Segurel L, Tung JY, Hinds D. Detection and interpretation of shared genetic influences on 40 human traits. Nat Genet. 2016;. doi:10.1038/ng.3570.

34.

White J, Swerdlow DI, Preiss D, Fairhurst-Hunter Z, Keating BJ, Asselbergs FW, Sattar N, Humphries SE, Hingorani AD, Holmes MV. Association of lipid fractions with risks for coronary artery disease and diabetes. JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1(6):692–9. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.1884.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Glymour M, Tchetgen Tchetgen E, Robins J. Credible Mendelian randomization studies: approaches for evaluating the instrumental variable assumptions. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(4):332–9. doi:10.1093/aje/kwr323.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Kang H, Kreuels B, Adjei O, Krumkamp R, May J, Small DS. The causal effect of malaria on stunting: a Mendelian randomization and matching approach. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(5):1390–8. doi:10.1093/ije/dyt116.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Windmeijer F, Farbmacher H, Davies N, Davey Smith G, White I. Selecting (in)valid instruments for instrumental variables estimation 2015. http://www.hec.unil.ch/documents/seminars/iems/1849.pdf.

38.

Han C. Detecting invalid instruments using L1-GMM. Econ Lett. 2008;101:285–7.CrossRef

39.

Mosteller F, Tukey JW. Data analysis and regression: a second course in statistics. Boston, MA, USA: Addison–Wesley; 1977.

40.

Huber PJ. Robust statistics. Berlin: Springer; 2011.CrossRef

41.

Burgess S, Bowden J, Dudbridge F, Thompson SG. Robust instrumental variable methods using multiple candidate instruments with application to Mendelian randomization. 2016. arXiv:1606.03729.

42.

Imbens GW, Angrist JD. Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica. 1994;62(2):467–75. doi:10.2307/2951620.CrossRef

43.

Robins JM. The analysis of randomized and nonrandomized AIDS treatment trials using a new approach to causal inference in longitudinal studies. In: Health service research methodology: a focus on AIDS. Washington, DC, USA: National Center for Health Services Research; 1989. p. 113–159.

44.

Hernán M, Robins J. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist’s dream? Epidemiology. 2006;17(4):360–72. doi:10.1097/01.ede.0000222409.00878.37.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Swanson S, Hernán M. Commentary: how to report instrumental variable analyses (suggestions welcome). Epidemiology. 2013;24(3):370–4. doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e31828d0590.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Burgess S, CHD CRP Genetics Collaboration. Identifying the odds ratio estimated by a two-stage instrumental variable analysis with a logistic regression model. Stat Med. 2013;32(27):4726–47. doi:10.1002/sim.5871.

47.

Burgess S, Butterworth A, Malarstig A, Thompson S. Use of Mendelian randomisation to assess potential benefit of clinical intervention. Br Med J. 2012;345:e7325. doi:10.1136/bmj.e7325.CrossRef

48.

Burgess S, Scott R, Timpson N, Davey Smith G, Thompson SG, EPIC-InterAct Consortium. Using published data in Mendelian randomization: a blueprint for efficient identification of causal risk factors. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30(7):543–52. doi:10.1007/s10654-015-0011-z.

49.

Bowden J, Del Greco MF, Minelli C, Davey Smith G, Sheehan N, Thompson J. A framework for the investigation of pleiotropy in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization. Stat Med. 2017;. doi:10.1002/sim.7221.PubMedPubMedCentral

50.

The Global Lipids Genetics Consortium. Discovery and refinement of loci associated with lipid levels. Nat Genet. 2013;45:1274–83. doi:10.1038/ng.2797.

51.

Schunkert H, König I, Kathiresan S, Reilly M, Assimes T, Holm H, Preuss M, Stewart A, Barbalic M, Gieger C, et al. Large-scale association analysis identifies 13 new susceptibility loci for coronary artery disease. Nat Genet. 2011;43(4):333–8. doi:10.1038/ng.784.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Do R, Willer CJ, Schmidt EM, Sengupta S, Gao C, Peloso GM, Gustafsson S, Kanoni S, Ganna A, Chen J, et al. Common variants associated with plasma triglycerides and risk for coronary artery disease. Nat Genet. 2013;45:1345–52. doi:10.1038/ng.2795.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method
Authors: Stephen Burgess
Simon G. Thompson
Publication date: 01-05-2017
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: European Journal of Epidemiology / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 0393-2990
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7284
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-017-0255-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

Maternal height and breast cancer risk: results from a study nested within the EPIC-Greece cohort

Cancer subtypes in aetiological research

What is in a name? Does cancer subtyping help or hinder in epidemiology research?

Associations of red and processed meat intake with major molecular pathological features of colorectal cancer

Interactions between dietary acrylamide intake and genes for ovarian cancer risk

Genetic variation in the ADIPOQ gene, adiponectin concentrations and risk of colorectal cancer: a Mendelian Randomization analysis using data from three large cohort studies