Systematic comparison of Mendelian randomization studies and randomized controlled trials using electronic databases

Abstract

Mendelian Randomization (MR) uses genetic instrumental variables to make causal inferences. Whilst sometimes referred to as "nature's randomized trial", it has distinct assumptions that make comparisons between the results of MR studies with those of actual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) invaluable. To scope the potential for (semi-)-automated triangulation of MR and RCT evidence, we mined ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed and EpigraphDB databases and carried out a series of 26 manual literature comparisons among 54 MR and 77 RCT publications. We found that only 11% of completed RCTs identified in ClinicalTrials.Gov submitted their results to the database. Similarly low coverage was revealed for Semantic Medline (SemMedDB) semantic triples derived from MR and RCT publications - 25% and 12%, respectively. Among intervention types that can be mimicked by MR, only trials of pharmaceutical interventions could be automatically matched to MR results due to insufficient annotation with MeSH ontology. A manual survey of the literature highlighted the potential for triangulation across a number of exposure/outcome pairs if these challenges can be addressed. We conclude that careful triangulation of MR with RCT evidence should involve consideration of similarity of phenotypes across study designs, intervention intensity and duration, study population demography and health status, comparator group, intervention goal and quality of evidence.

Non-linear mendelian randomization: detection of biases using negative controls with a focus on BMI, Vitamin D and LDL cholesterol

“…Mendelian randomization (MR) is now established as a key technique in epidemiology, to help overcome bias due to unmeasured confounding. 1,2 Estimates from MR have been consistent with randomised trial data in many settings, 3 and have assisted causal inference as a component of triangulation of evidence 4 Recently, there have been developments in MR, where an attempt is made to extend causal inference from a whole population (e.g. the effect of increasing vitamin D on allcause mortality), to strata of that population (e.g.…”

Mendelian randomization: causal inference leveraging genetic data

“…RCT), epidemiological, or genetic evidence (e.g. colocalization), is needed strengthen the confidence in a causal finding and avoid false discoveries (see Lawlor, 2016;Sobczyk, Zheng, Smith, & Gaunt, 2022;Zuber et al 2022).…”

Evaluating the life-extending potential and safety profile of rapamycin: a Mendelian Randomization study of the mTOR pathway

“…Once the instrumental variables are identified, they can be used to approximate the causal effect of mTOR inhibition by assessing their association with the outcome of interest in large-scale genome-wide association study (GWAS) data sets. As MR estimates are closer to representing lifetime rather than short-term effects of a given intervention 23 , they can reveal the potential benefits and risks associated with chronic rapamycin use.…”