Objectives To examine whether educational attainment and intelligence have causal effects on risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), independently of each other. Design Two-sample univariable and multivariable Mendelian randomization (MR) to estimate the causal effects of education on intelligence and vice versa, and the total and independent causal effects of both education and intelligence on AD risk. Participants 17 008 AD cases and 37 154 controls from the International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project (IGAP) consortium. Main outcome measure Odds ratio (OR) of AD per standardized deviation increase in years of schooling (SD = 3.6 years) and intelligence (SD = 15 points on intelligence test). Results There was strong evidence of a causal, bidirectional relationship between intelligence and educational attainment, with the magnitude of effect being similar in both directions [OR for intelligence on education = 0.51 SD units, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49, 0.54; OR for education on intelligence = 0.57 SD units, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.66]. Similar overall effects were observed for both educational attainment and intelligence on AD risk in the univariable MR analysis; with each SD increase in years of schooling and intelligence, odds of AD were, on average, 37% (95% CI: 23–49%) and 35% (95% CI: 25–43%) lower, respectively. There was little evidence from the multivariable MR analysis that educational attainment affected AD risk once intelligence was taken into account (OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.68–1.93), but intelligence affected AD risk independently of educational attainment to a similar magnitude observed in the univariate analysis (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.44–0.88). Conclusions There is robust evidence for an independent, causal effect of intelligence in lowering AD risk. The causal effect of educational attainment on AD risk is likely to be mediated by intelligence.

Aims/hypothesis Metformin use has been associated with reduced incidence of dementia in diabetic individuals in observational studies. However, the causality between the two in the general population is unclear. This study uses Mendelian randomisation (MR) to investigate the causal effect of metformin targets on Alzheimer’s disease and potential causal mechanisms in the brain linking the two. Methods Genetic proxies for the effects of metformin drug targets were identified as variants in the gene for the corresponding target that associated with HbA1c level (N=344,182) and expression level of the corresponding gene (N≤31,684). The cognitive outcomes were derived from genome-wide association studies comprising 527,138 middle-aged Europeans, including 71,880 with Alzheimer’s disease or Alzheimer’s disease-by-proxy. MR estimates representing lifelong metformin use on Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive function in the general population were generated. Effect of expression level of 22 metformin-related genes in brain cortex (N=6601 donors) on Alzheimer’s disease was further estimated. Results Genetically proxied metformin use, equivalent to a 6.75 mmol/mol (1.09%) reduction on HbA1c, was associated with 4% lower odds of Alzheimer’s disease (OR 0.96 [95% CI 0.95, 0.98], p=1.06×10−4) in non-diabetic individuals. One metformin target, mitochondrial complex 1 (MCI), showed a robust effect on Alzheimer’s disease (OR 0.88, p=4.73×10−4) that was independent of AMP-activated protein kinase. MR of expression in brain cortex tissue showed that decreased MCI-related gene (NDUFA2) expression was associated with lower Alzheimer’s disease risk (OR 0.95, p=4.64×10−4) and favourable cognitive function. Conclusions/interpretation Metformin use may cause reduced Alzheimer’s disease risk in the general population. Mitochondrial function and the NDUFA2 gene are plausible mechanisms of action in dementia protection. Graphical abstract

Background It is established that Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients experience sleep disruption. However, it remains unknown whether disruption in the quantity, quality or timing of sleep is a risk factor for the onset of AD. Methods We used the largest published genome-wide association studies of self-reported and accelerometer-measured sleep traits (chronotype, duration, fragmentation, insomnia, daytime napping and daytime sleepiness), and AD. Mendelian randomization (MR) was used to estimate the causal effect of self-reported and accelerometer-measured sleep parameters on AD risk. Results Overall, there was little evidence to support a causal effect of sleep traits on AD risk. There was some suggestive evidence that self-reported daytime napping was associated with lower AD risk [odds ratio (OR): 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50–0.99). Some other sleep traits (accelerometer-measured ‘eveningness’ and sleep duration, and self-reported daytime sleepiness) had ORs of a similar magnitude to daytime napping, but were less precisely estimated. Conclusions Overall, we found very limited evidence to support a causal effect of sleep traits on AD risk. Our findings provide tentative evidence that daytime napping may reduce AD risk. Given that this is the first MR study of multiple self-report and objective sleep traits on AD risk, findings should be replicated using independent samples when such data become available.