Abstract
Background Point estimation in Mendelian randomization (MR), an instrumental variable model, usually requires strong homogeneity assumptions beyond the core instrumental conditions. Bounding, which does not require homogeneity assumptions, is infrequently applied in MR.
Objective We aimed to demonstrate computing nonparametric bounds for the causal risk difference derived from multiple proposed instruments in an MR study where effect heterogeneity is expected,
Methods Using data from the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study and Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (n=4457, 6216) to study the average causal effect of maternal pregnancy alcohol use on offspring attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms, we proposed 11 maternal SNPs as instruments. We computed bounds assuming subsets of SNPs were jointly valid instruments, for all combinations of SNPs where the MR model was not falsified.
Results The MR assumptions were violated for all sets with more than 4 SNPs in one cohort and for all sets with more than 2 SNPs in the other. Bounds assuming one SNP was an individually valid instrument barely improved on assumption-free bounds. Bounds tightened as more SNPs were assumed to be jointly valid instruments, and occasionally identified directions of effect, though bounds from different sets varied.
Conclusions Our results suggest that, when proposing multiple instruments, bounds can contextualize plausible magnitudes and directions of effects. Computing bounds over multiple assumption sets underscores the importance of evaluating the assumptions of MR models.
Study question Do nonparametric bounds provide useful information in the context of MR studies of prenatal exposures with multiple proposed genetic instruments?
What’s already known Point estimation in MR typically requires strong, unverifiable homogeneity assumptions beyond the core MR assumptions. Bounds, which do not require homogeneity assumptions, are rarely applied in MR.
What this study adds We computed bounds on the average causal effect of alcohol consumption during pregnancy on offspring ADHD symptoms in two European cohorts, proposing 11 genetic variants as instruments. Our results suggest that, when proposing multiple instruments, bounds can contextualize plausible magnitudes and directions of effects.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was partly supported by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority (2018059) and the Norwegian Research Council (274611). This project is supported by an innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska‐Curie grant agreement no. 721567. S. Swanson is further supported by a NWO/ZonMW Veni Grant (91617066). S. Swanson and E. Diemer are further supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program study #2032. H. Tiemeier is supported by a grant of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO grant No. 024.001.003, Consortium on Individual Development). MR Munafo and L Zuccolo are part of the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol (MC_UU_00011/7, MC_UU_00011/1). The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (Grant ref: 217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. This publication is the work of the authors and all authors will serve as guarantors for the contents of this paper. A comprehensive list of grants funding is available on the ALSPAC website. Maternal ADH SNP genotyping was funded by MRC grant number G0902144. ALSPAC GWAS data was generated by Sample Logistics and Genotype Facilities at Wellcome Sanger Institute and LabCorp (Laboratory Corporation of America) using support from 23andMe. The design of questions on parental alcohol consumption was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to Dr. Ruth Little. This research was also supported by the NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Informed consent for the use of data collected via questionnaires and clinics was obtained from participants following the recommendations of the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee at the time. Ethical approval was obtained from the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee and the Local Research Ethics Committees. The establishment of MoBa and initial data collection was based on a license from the Norwegian Data Protection Agency and approval from The Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics. MoBa is now based on regulations related to the Norwegian Health Registry Act. The current study was approved by The Norwegian Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics (2016/1702).
I 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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
ALSPAC data access is through a system of managed open access. The following steps highlight how to apply for access to the data included in this data note and all other ALSPAC data: 1. Please read the ALSPAC access policy (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/alspac/documents/researchers/data-access/ALSPAC_Access_Policy.pdf) which describes the process of accessing the data and samples in detail, and outlines the costs associated with doing so. 2. You may also find it useful to browse our fully searchable research proposals database (https://proposals.epi.bristol.ac.uk/?q=proposalSummaries), which lists all research projects that have been approved since April 2011. 3. Please submit your research proposal (https://proposals.epi.bristol.ac.uk/) for consideration by the ALSPAC Executive Committee. MoBa data are used by researchers and research groups at both the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and other research institutions nationally and internationally. The research must adhere to the aims of MoBa and the participants given consent. All use of data and biological material from MoBa is subject to Norwegian legislation. More information can be found on the study website (https://www.fhi.no/en/studies/moba/for-forskere-artikler/research-and-data-access/).
https://www.fhi.no/en/studies/moba/for-forskere-artikler/research-and-data-access/
