MRC Centre for Causal Analyses in Translational Epidemiology, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Stat Methods Med Res. 2012 Jun;21(3):223-42. doi: 10.1177/0962280210394459. Epub 2011 Jan 7.
Mendelian randomisation analyses use genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs) to estimate causal effects of modifiable risk factors on disease outcomes. Genetic variants typically explain a small proportion of the variability in risk factors; hence Mendelian randomisation analyses can require large sample sizes. However, an increasing number of genetic variants have been found to be robustly associated with disease-related outcomes in genome-wide association studies. Use of multiple instruments can improve the precision of IV estimates, and also permit examination of underlying IV assumptions. We discuss the use of multiple genetic variants in Mendelian randomisation analyses with continuous outcome variables where all relationships are assumed to be linear. We describe possible violations of IV assumptions, and how multiple instrument analyses can be used to identify them. We present an example using four adiposity-associated genetic variants as IVs for the causal effect of fat mass on bone density, using data on 5509 children enrolled in the ALSPAC birth cohort study. We also use simulation studies to examine the effect of different sets of IVs on precision and bias. When each instrument independently explains variability in the risk factor, use of multiple instruments increases the precision of IV estimates. However, inclusion of weak instruments could increase finite sample bias. Missing data on multiple genetic variants can diminish the available sample size, compared with single instrument analyses. In simulations with additive genotype-risk factor effects, IV estimates using a weighted allele score had similar properties to estimates using multiple instruments. Under the correct conditions, multiple instrument analyses are a promising approach for Mendelian randomisation studies. Further research is required into multiple imputation methods to address missing data issues in IV estimation.
孟德尔随机化分析使用遗传变异作为工具变量 (IVs) 来估计可调节风险因素对疾病结局的因果效应。遗传变异通常只解释了风险因素变异的一小部分;因此,孟德尔随机化分析可能需要大的样本量。然而,越来越多的遗传变异已被发现与全基因组关联研究中的疾病相关结局具有稳健的相关性。使用多个工具可以提高 IV 估计的精度,并且还可以检验潜在的 IV 假设。我们讨论了在连续结局变量的孟德尔随机化分析中使用多个遗传变异的情况,其中所有关系都假定为线性。我们描述了可能违反 IV 假设的情况,以及如何使用多工具分析来识别这些情况。我们使用 5509 名参加 ALSPAC 出生队列研究的儿童的数据,展示了一个使用四个肥胖相关遗传变异作为脂肪量对骨密度因果效应的 IV 的示例。我们还使用模拟研究来研究不同 IV 集对精度和偏差的影响。当每个工具独立地解释风险因素的变异性时,使用多个工具会增加 IV 估计的精度。然而,包含弱工具可能会增加有限样本偏差。与单工具分析相比,多个遗传变异的缺失数据会减少可用样本量。在具有加性基因型 - 风险因素效应的模拟中,使用加权等位基因评分的 IV 估计与使用多个工具的估计具有相似的性质。在正确的条件下,多工具分析是孟德尔随机化研究的一种有前途的方法。需要进一步研究多重插补方法来解决 IV 估计中的缺失数据问题。