Improving causality in microbiome research:can human genetic epidemiology help?

Evidence supports associations between human gut microbiome variation and multiple health outcomes and diseases. Despite compelling results from in vivo and in vitro models, few findings have been translated into an understanding of modifiable causal relationships. Furthermore, epidemiological studies have been unconvincing in their ability to offer causal evidence due to their observational nature, where confounding by lifestyle and behavioural factors, reverse causation and bias are important limitations. Whilst randomized controlled trials have made steps towards understanding the causal role played by the gut microbiome in disease, they are expensive and time-consuming. This evidence that has not been translated between model systems impedes opportunities for harnessing the gut microbiome for improving population health. Therefore, there is a need for alternative approaches to interrogate causality in the context of gut microbiome research. The integration of human genetics within population health sciences have proved successful in facilitating improved causal inference (e.g., with Mendelian randomization [MR] studies) and characterising inherited disease susceptibility. MR is an established method that employs human genetic variation as natural “proxies” for clinically relevant (and ideally modifiable) traits to improve causality in observational associations between those traits and health outcomes. Here, we focus and discuss the utility of MR within the context of human gut microbiome research, review studies that have used this method and consider the strengths, limitations and challenges facing this research. Specifically, we highlight the requirements for careful examination and interpretation of derived causal estimates and host (i.e., human) genetic effects themselves, triangulation across multiple study designs and inter-disciplinary collaborations. Meeting these requirements will help support or challenge causality of the role played by the gut microbiome on human health to develop new, targeted therapies to alleviate disease symptoms to ultimately improve lives and promote good health

Improving causality in microbiome research: Can human genetic epidemiology help?

Evidence supports associations between human gut microbiome variation and multiple health outcomes and diseases. Despite compelling results from in vivo and in vitro models, few findings have been translated into an understanding of modifiable causal relationships. Furthermore, epidemiological studies have been unconvincing in their ability to offer causal evidence due to their observational nature, where confounding by lifestyle and behavioural factors, reverse causation and bias are important limitations. Whilst randomized controlled trials have made steps towards understanding the causal role played by the gut microbiome in disease, they are expensive and time-consuming. This evidence that has not been translated between model systems impedes opportunities for harnessing the gut microbiome for improving population health. Therefore, there is a need for alternative approaches to interrogate causality in the context of gut microbiome research. The integration of human genetics within population health sciences have proved successful in facilitating improved causal inference (e.g., with Mendelian randomization [MR] studies) and characterising inherited disease susceptibility. MR is an established method that employs human genetic variation as natural “proxies” for clinically relevant (and ideally modifiable) traits to improve causality in observational associations between those traits and health outcomes. Here, we focus and discuss the utility of MR within the context of human gut microbiome research, review studies that have used this method and consider the strengths, limitations and challenges facing this research. Specifically, we highlight the requirements for careful examination and interpretation of derived causal estimates and host (i.e., human) genetic effects themselves, triangulation across multiple study designs and inter-disciplinary collaborations. Meeting these requirements will help support or challenge causality of the role played by the gut microbiome on human health to develop new, targeted therapies to alleviate disease symptoms to ultimately improve lives and promote good health

Mendelian randomization analysis of the causal impact of body mass index and waist-hip ratio on rates of hospital admission

We analyze how measures of adiposity – body mass index (BMI) and waist hip ratio (WHR) – causally influence rates of hospital admission. Conventional analyses of this relationship are susceptible to omitted variable bias from variables that jointly influence both hospital admission and adipose status. We implement a novel quasi-Poisson instrumental variable model in a Mendelian randomization framework, identifying causal effects from random perturbations to germline genetic variation. We estimate the individual and joint effects of BMI, WHR, and WHR adjusted for BMI. We also implement multivariable instrumental variable methods in which the causal effect of one exposure is estimated conditionally on the causal effect of another exposure. Data on 310,471 participants and over 550,000 inpatient admissions in the UK Biobank were used to perform one-sample and two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses. The results supported a causal role of adiposity on hospital admissions, with consistency across all estimates and sensitivity analyses. Point estimates were generally larger than estimates from comparable observational specifications. We observed an attenuation of the BMI effect when adjusting for WHR in the multivariable Mendelian randomization analyses, suggesting that an adverse fat distribution, rather than a higher BMI itself, may drive the relationship between adiposity and risk of hospital admission

Sensitivity to missing not at random dropout in clinical trials:Use and interpretation of the trimmed means estimator

Outcome values in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be missing not at random (MNAR), if patients with extreme outcome values are more likely to drop out (eg, due to perceived ineffectiveness of treatment, or adverse effects). In such scenarios, estimates from complete case analysis (CCA) and multiple imputation (MI) will be biased. We investigate the use of the trimmed means (TM) estimator for the case of univariable missingness in one continuous outcome. The TM estimator operates by setting missing values to the most extreme value, and then “trimming” away equal fractions of both groups, estimating the treatment effect using the remaining data. The TM estimator relies on two assumptions, which we term the “strong MNAR” and “location shift” assumptions. We derive formulae for the TM estimator bias resulting from the violation of these assumptions for normally distributed outcomes. We propose an adjusted TM estimator, which relaxes the location shift assumption and detail how our bias formulae can be used to establish the direction of bias of CCA and TM estimates, to inform sensitivity analyses. The TM approach is illustrated in a sensitivity analysis of the CoBalT RCT of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in 469 individuals with 46 months follow‐up. Results were consistent with a beneficial CBT treatment effect, with MI estimates closer to the null and TM estimates further from the null than the CCA estimate. We propose using the TM estimator as a sensitivity analysis for data where extreme outcome value dropout is plausible

Best (but oft-forgotten) practices:the design, analysis, and interpretation of Mendelian randomization studies

Mendelian randomization (MR) is an increasingly important tool for appraising causality in observational epidemiology. The technique exploits the principle that genotypes are not generally susceptible to reverse causation bias and confounding, reflecting their fixed nature and Mendel’s first and second laws of inheritance. The approach is, however, subject to important limitations and assumptions that, if unaddressed or compounded by poor study design, can lead to erroneous conclusions. Nevertheless, the advent of 2-sample approaches (in which exposure and outcome are measured in separate samples) and the increasing availability of open-access data from large consortia of genome-wide association studies and population biobanks mean that the approach is likely to become routine practice in evidence synthesis and causal inference research. In this article we provide an overview of the design, analysis, and interpretation of MR studies, with a special emphasis on assumptions and limitations. We also consider different analytic strategies for strengthening causal inference. Although impossible to prove causality with any single approach, MR is a highly cost-effective strategy for prioritizing intervention targets for disease prevention and for strengthening the evidence base for public health policy

Blood pressure and mortality:using offspring blood pressure as an instrument for own blood pressure in the HUNT study

Given that observational associations may be inaccurate, we used offspring blood pressure (BP) to provide alternative estimates of the associations between own BP and mortality. Observational associations between BP and mortality, estimated as hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox regression, were compared to HRs obtained using offspring BP as an instrumental variable (IV) for own BP (N = 32,227 mother-offspring and 27,535 father-offspring pairs). Observationally, there were positive associations between own BP and mortality from all-causes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke and diabetes. Point estimates of the associations between BP and mortality from all-causes, CVD and CHD were amplified in magnitude when using offspring BP as an IV. For example, the HR for all-cause mortality per standard deviation (SD) increase in own systolic BP (SBP) obtained in conventional observational analyses increased from 1.10 (95% CI: 1.09–1.12; P < 0.0001) to 1.31 (95% CI: 1.19–1.43; P < 0.0001). Additionally, SBP was positively associated with diabetes and cancer mortality (HRs: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.12–3.35; P = 0.02 and 1.20; 95% CI: 1.02–1.42; P = 0.03, respectively) and diastolic BP (DBP) with stroke mortality (HR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.02–1.66; P = 0.03). Results support positive associations between BP and mortality from all-causes, CVD and CHD, SBP on cancer mortality and DBP on stroke mortality

Common health conditions in childhood and adolescence, school absence, and educational attainment: Mendelian randomization study

Good health is positively related to children’s educational outcomes, but relationships may not be causal. Demonstrating a causal influence would strongly support childhood and adolescent health as important for education policy. We applied genetic causal inference methods to assess the causal relationship of common health conditions at age 10 (primary/elementary school) and 13 (mid-secondary/mid-high school) with educational attainment at 16 and school absence at 14–16. Participants were 6113 children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Exposures were symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), depression, asthma, migraines and BMI. Genetic liability for these conditions and BMI was indexed by polygenic scores. In non-genetic, multivariate-adjusted models, all health conditions except asthma and migraines were associated with poorer attainment and greater school absence. School absence substantially mediated effects of BMI (39.9% for BMI at 13) and migraines (72.0% at 10), on attainment with more modest mediation for emotional and neurodevelopmental conditions. In genetic models, a unit increase in standardized BMI at 10 predicted a 0.19 S.D. decrease (95% CI: 0.11, 0.28) in attainment at 16, equivalent to around a 1/3 grade lower in all subjects, and 8.7% more school absence (95% CI:1.8%,16.1%). Associations were similar at 13. Genetic liability for ADHD predicted lower attainment but not more absence. Triangulation across multiple approaches supports a causal, negative influence on educational outcomes of BMI and ADHD, but not of ASD, depression, asthma or migraine. Higher BMI in childhood and adolescence may causally impair educational outcomes

BMI as a Modifiable Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetes: Refining and Understanding Causal Estimates Using Mendelian Randomization.

This study focused on resolving the relationship between BMI and type 2 diabetes. The availability of multiple variants associated with BMI offers a new chance to resolve the true causal effect of BMI on type 2 diabetes; however, the properties of these associations and their validity as genetic instruments need to be considered alongside established and new methods for undertaking Mendelian randomization (MR). We explore the potential for pleiotropic genetic variants to generate bias, revise existing estimates, and illustrate value in new analysis methods. A two-sample MR approach with 96 genetic variants was used with three different analysis methods, two of which (MR-Egger and the weighted median) have been developed specifically to address problems of invalid instrumental variables. We estimate an odds ratio for type 2 diabetes per unit increase in BMI (kg/m(2)) of between 1.19 and 1.38, with the most stable estimate using all instruments and a weighted median approach (1.26 [95% CI 1.17, 1.34]). TCF7L2(rs7903146) was identified as a complex effect or pleiotropic instrument, and removal of this variant resulted in convergence of causal effect estimates from different causal analysis methods. This indicated the potential for pleiotropy to affect estimates and differences in performance of alternative analytical methods. In a real type 2 diabetes-focused example, this study demonstrates the potential impact of invalid instruments on causal effect estimates and the potential for new approaches to mitigate the bias caused.Medical Research Council (Grant IDs: MC_UU_12013/1, MC_UU_12013/2, MC_UU_12013/3); University of Bristol; Wellcome Trust (Grant ID: 100114); Medical Research Council (Methodology Research Fellowship, Grant ID: MR/N501906/1); Cancer Research UK (C18281/A19169).This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from American Diabetes Association via http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/db16-041