Cargando…

Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms

INTRODUCTION: Mendelian randomisation (MR) has been suggested to be able to overcome biases of observational studies, but no meta-analysis is available on MR studies on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This systematic review and Meta-analysis examined the evidence of causal risk factors for AAA iden...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ibrahim, Muhammad, Thanigaimani, Shivshankar, Singh, Tejas P, Morris, Dylan, Golledge, Jonathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8274287/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34286064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100836
_version_ 1783721533063036928
author Ibrahim, Muhammad
Thanigaimani, Shivshankar
Singh, Tejas P
Morris, Dylan
Golledge, Jonathan
author_facet Ibrahim, Muhammad
Thanigaimani, Shivshankar
Singh, Tejas P
Morris, Dylan
Golledge, Jonathan
author_sort Ibrahim, Muhammad
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Mendelian randomisation (MR) has been suggested to be able to overcome biases of observational studies, but no meta-analysis is available on MR studies on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This systematic review and Meta-analysis examined the evidence of causal risk factors for AAA identified in MR studies. METHODS: Publicly available databases were systematically searched for MR studies that reported any causal risk factors for AAA diagnosis. Meta-analyses were performed using random effect models and reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Study quality was assessed using a modified version of Strengthening the Reporting of Mendelian Randomisation Studies (STROBE-MR) guidelines. RESULTS: Sixteen MR studies involving 34,050 patients with AAA and 2,205,894 controls were included. Meta-analyses suggested that one standard deviation increase in high density lipoprotein (HDL) significantly reduced (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.72) and one standard deviation increase in low density lipoprotein (LDL) significantly increased the risk (OR: 1.68, 95%, CI: 1.55, 1.82) of AAA. One standard deviation increase in triglycerides did not significantly increase the risk of AAA (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.71). Quality assessment suggested that ten and five studies were of low and moderate risk of bias respectively, with one study considered as high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests LDL and HDL are positive and negative casual risk factors for AAA.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8274287
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82742872021-07-19 Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms Ibrahim, Muhammad Thanigaimani, Shivshankar Singh, Tejas P Morris, Dylan Golledge, Jonathan Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Review INTRODUCTION: Mendelian randomisation (MR) has been suggested to be able to overcome biases of observational studies, but no meta-analysis is available on MR studies on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This systematic review and Meta-analysis examined the evidence of causal risk factors for AAA identified in MR studies. METHODS: Publicly available databases were systematically searched for MR studies that reported any causal risk factors for AAA diagnosis. Meta-analyses were performed using random effect models and reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Study quality was assessed using a modified version of Strengthening the Reporting of Mendelian Randomisation Studies (STROBE-MR) guidelines. RESULTS: Sixteen MR studies involving 34,050 patients with AAA and 2,205,894 controls were included. Meta-analyses suggested that one standard deviation increase in high density lipoprotein (HDL) significantly reduced (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.72) and one standard deviation increase in low density lipoprotein (LDL) significantly increased the risk (OR: 1.68, 95%, CI: 1.55, 1.82) of AAA. One standard deviation increase in triglycerides did not significantly increase the risk of AAA (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.71). Quality assessment suggested that ten and five studies were of low and moderate risk of bias respectively, with one study considered as high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests LDL and HDL are positive and negative casual risk factors for AAA. Elsevier 2021-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8274287/ /pubmed/34286064 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100836 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Ibrahim, Muhammad
Thanigaimani, Shivshankar
Singh, Tejas P
Morris, Dylan
Golledge, Jonathan
Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms
title Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms
title_full Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms
title_fullStr Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms
title_short Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms
title_sort systematic review and meta-analysis of mendelian randomisation analyses of abdominal aortic aneurysms
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8274287/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34286064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100836
work_keys_str_mv AT ibrahimmuhammad systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmendelianrandomisationanalysesofabdominalaorticaneurysms
AT thanigaimanishivshankar systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmendelianrandomisationanalysesofabdominalaorticaneurysms
AT singhtejasp systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmendelianrandomisationanalysesofabdominalaorticaneurysms
AT morrisdylan systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmendelianrandomisationanalysesofabdominalaorticaneurysms
AT golledgejonathan systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmendelianrandomisationanalysesofabdominalaorticaneurysms