Methodological Challenges in Mendelian Randomization

Abstract

We give critical attention to the assumptions underlying Mendelian randomization analysis and their biological plausibility. Several scenarios violating the Mendelian randomization assumptions are described, including settings with inadequate phenotype definition, the setting of time-varying exposures, the presence of gene-environment interaction, the existence of measurement error, the possibility of reverse causation, and the presence of linkage disequilibrium. Data analysis examples are given illustrating that the inappropriate use of instrumental variable techniques when the Mendelian randomization assumptions are violated can lead to biases of enormous magnitude. To help address some of the strong assumptions being made, three possible approaches are suggested. First, the original proposal of Katan (Lancet. 1986; 1:507-508) for Mendelian randomization was not to use instrumental variable techniques to obtain estimates, but merely to examine genotype-outcome associations to test for the presence of an effect of the exposure on the outcome. We show that this more modest goal and approach can circumvent many, though not all of, the potential biases described. Second, we discuss the use of sensitivity analysis in evaluating the consequences of violations in the assumptions and attempts to correct for those violations. Third, we suggest that a focus on negative, rather than positive, Mendelian randomization results may turn out to be more reliable.

Predicting the Direction of Causal Effect Based on an Instrumental Variable Analysis: A Cautionary Tale

“…Several authors have advocated reporting the presence or absence of an association between the genetic variant(s) and the outcome as the primary analysis result, rather than a causal effect estimate [5,6]. This is analogous to performing an intention-to-treat analysis in a randomized trial [7].…”

Mendelian Randomization versus Path Models: Making Causal Inferences in Genetic Epidemiology

“…The validity of such a Mendelian randomization relies on a series of assumptions, and these assumptions are summarized in table 1 [3,5,6,[17][18][19] . Any association analysis requires sufficient sample sizes.…”

The Next Step Forward Is to Take a Step Back

“…This picture gets more complicated when the diagnosis of T2D and not just the presence of T2D is considered. While methodologists continue to work on the problem of causal inference in the presence of time-varying factors and in particular how MR can be used (11), it may be instructive to take a step back and ask, "What is intended to be estimated? "…”