RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Strategies to investigate and mitigate collider bias in genetic and Mendelian randomization studies of disease progression
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.04.22.22274166
DO 10.1101/2022.04.22.22274166
A1 Mitchell, Ruth E.
A1 Hartley, April
A1 Walker, Venexia M.
A1 Gkatzionis, Apostolos
A1 Yarmolinsky, James
A1 Bell, Joshua A.
A1 Chong, Amanda H. W.
A1 Paternoster, Lavinia
A1 Tilling, Kate
A1 Smith, George Davey
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166.abstract
AB Genetic studies of disease progression can be used to identify factors that may influence survival or prognosis, which may differ from factors which influence on disease susceptibility. Studies of disease progression feed directly into therapeutics for disease, whereas studies of incidence inform prevention strategies. However, studies of disease progression are known to be affected by collider (also known as “index event”) bias since the disease progression phenotype can only be observed for individuals who have the disease. This applies equally to observational and genetic studies, including genome-wide association studies and Mendelian randomization analyses. In this paper, our aim is to review several statistical methods that can be used to detect and adjust for index event bias in studies of disease progression, and how they apply to genetic and Mendelian Randomization studies using both individual and summary-level data. Methods to detect the presence of index event bias include the use of negative controls, a comparison of associations between risk factors for incidence in individuals with and without the disease, and an inspection of Miami plots. Methods to adjust for the bias include inverse probability weighting (with individual-level data), or Slope-hunter and Dudbridge’s index event bias adjustment (when only summary-level data are available). We also outline two approaches for sensitivity analysis. We then illustrate how three methods to minimise bias can be used in practice with two applied examples. Our first example investigates the effects of blood lipid traits on mortality from coronary heart disease, whilst our second example investigates genetic associations with breast cancer mortality.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol (MC_UU_00011/1, MC_UU_00011/3, MC_UU_00011/4). VMW is funded by COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing National Core Study, which is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC_20059). AC is funded by the Jonathan and Georgina de Pass studentship.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors