4.6 Review

Genetic effects versus bias for candidate polymorphisms in myocardial infarction: Case study and overview of large-scale evidence

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 165, Issue 9, Pages 973-984

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwk085

Keywords

angiotensin II; AT1R; bias (epidemiology); epidemiology; genes; meta-analysis; myocardial infarction; polymorphism; genetic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several genetic polymorphisms have been proposed to be associated with myocardial infarction (MI). The authors examined the evidence and biases underlying such associations using a case-study meta-analysis and an overview of large-scale data. In a meta-analysis of 27 studies addressing the association of the angiotensin type 1 receptor (ATlR)+ 1166AIC polymorphism with MI (10,1180 cases, 17,129 controls), the *C allele conferred an increase in MI risk (odds ratio = 1.13 per allele, p = 0.005). However, there was large between-study heterogeneity; the largest study showed no effect, contradicting smaller studies; and studies with blinded genotyping showed no effect. The authors conducted an overview of meta-analyses of genetic associations for MI or coronary artery disease, including at least three studies and 3,000 subjects. In their latest meta-analysis, another 14 polymorphisms were found to have formally significant associations. If true, these associations would already explain 42% of the MI risk for Caucasian populations. Significant between-study heterogeneity was common. Across the 32 largest studies, only two found formally significant results (nine would be expected if each meta-analysis showed a true association). Even with large-scale evidence from meta-analyses, significant associations for MI may be subject to bias. Large-scale single studies and prospective consortia should be used for detecting and validating the genetic determinants of MI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available