Appraising the Causal Role of Risk Factors in Coronary Artery Disease and Stroke: A Systematic Review of Mendelian Randomization Studies.

BACKGROUND Mendelian randomization (MR) offers a powerful approach to study potential causal associations between exposures and health outcomes by using genetic variants associated with an exposure as instrumental variables. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarize previous MR studies and to evaluate the evidence for causality for a broad range of exposures in relation to coronary artery disease and stroke. METHODS AND RESULTS MR studies investigating the association of any genetically predicted exposure with coronary artery disease or stroke were identified. Studies were classified into 4 categories built on the significance of the main MR analysis results and its concordance with sensitivity analyses, namely, robust, probable, suggestive, and insufficient. Studies reporting associations that did not perform any sensitivity analysis were classified as nonevaluable. We identified 2725 associations eligible for evaluation, examining 535 distinct exposures. Of them, 141 were classified as robust, 353 as probable, 110 as suggestive, and 926 had insufficient evidence. The most robust associations were observed for anthropometric traits, lipids, and lipoproteins and type 2 diabetes with coronary artery; disease and clinical measurements with coronary artery disease and stroke; and thrombotic factors with stroke. CONCLUSIONS Despite the large number of studies that have been conducted, only a limited number of associations were supported by robust evidence. Approximately half of the studies reporting associations presented an MR sensitivity analysis along with the main analysis that further supported the causality of associations. Future research should focus on more thorough assessments of sensitivity MR analyses and further assessments of mediation effects or nonlinearity of associations.

Global assessment of C-reactive protein and health-related outcomes: an umbrella review of evidence from observational studies and Mendelian randomization studies.

C-reactive protein (CRP) has been studied extensively for association with a large number of non-infectious diseases and outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the breadth and validity of associations between CRP and non-infectious, chronic health outcomes and biomarkers. We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and a systematic review of Mendelian randomization (MR) studies. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were systematically searched from inception up to March 2019. Meta-analyses of observational studies and MR studies examining associations between CRP and health outcomes were identified, excluding studies on the diagnostic value of CRP for infections. We found 113 meta-analytic comparisons of observational studies and 196 MR analyses, covering a wide range of outcomes. The overwhelming majority of the meta-analyses of observational studies reported a nominally statistically significant result (95/113, 84.1%); however, the majority of the meta-analyses displayed substantial heterogeneity (47.8%), small study effects (39.8%) or excess significance (41.6%). Only two outcomes, cardiovascular mortality and venous thromboembolism, showed convincing evidence of association with CRP levels. When examining the MR literature, we found MR studies for 53/113 outcomes examined in the observational study meta-analyses but substantial support for a causal association with CRP was not observed for any phenotype. Despite the striking amount of research on CRP, convincing evidence for associations and causal effects is remarkably limited.