3.8 Article

Causal Relevance of Blood Lipid Fractions in the Development of Carotid Atherosclerosis Mendelian Randomization Analysis

Journal

CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR GENETICS
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 63-72

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.112.963140

Keywords

carotid intima-media thickness; lipids; mendelian randomization

Funding

  1. British Heart Foundation (BHF) [PG/07/133/24260, RG/08/008, SP/07/007/23671]
  2. BHF
  3. National Institutes of Health
  4. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [HL36310]
  5. MRC Population Health Scientist Fellowship [G0802432]
  6. Medical Research Council
  7. Health and Safety Executive
  8. Department of Health
  9. National Institute on Aging [AG13196]
  10. Agency for Health Care Policy Research [HS06516]
  11. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Networks on Successful Midlife Development and Socio-economic Status and Health
  12. European Commission [QLG1-CT-2002-00896]
  13. Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation
  14. Swedish Research Council [8691, 0593]
  15. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  16. Torsten and Ragnar Soderberg Foundation
  17. Foundation for Strategic Research
  18. Stockholm County Council [562 183]
  19. Strategic Cardiovascular and Diabetes Programmes of Karolinska Institutet
  20. Stockholm County Council
  21. Academy of Finland [110413]
  22. BHF [RG2008/014]
  23. Italian Ministry of Health
  24. Magnus Bergwall Foundation
  25. MRC
  26. BHF Program
  27. Medical Research Foundation
  28. MRC [G0802432]
  29. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  30. [FS/2005/125]
  31. British Heart Foundation [PG/09/022/26739, RG/08/008/25291, SP/07/007/23671] Funding Source: researchfish
  32. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/J023299/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  33. Medical Research Council [MC_UU_12015/1, G0802432] Funding Source: researchfish
  34. ESRC [ES/J023299/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  35. MRC [MC_UU_12015/1, G0802432] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background-Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT), a subclinical measure of atherosclerosis, is associated with risk of coronary heart disease events. Statins reduce progression of CIMT and coronary heart disease risk in proportion to the reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. However, interventions targeting triglycerides (TGs) or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) have produced inconsistent effects on CIMT and coronary heart disease risk, making it uncertain whether such agents are ineffective for coronary heart disease prevention or whether CIMT is an inadequate marker of HDL-C or TG-mediated effects. We aimed to determine the causal association among the 3 major blood lipid fractions and common CIMT using mendelian randomization analysis. Methods and Results-Genetic scores specific for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, HDL-C, and TGs were derived based on single nucleotide polymorphisms from a gene-centric array in approximate to 5000 individuals (Cardiochip scores) and from a genome-wide association meta-analysis in >100 000 individuals (Global Lipids Genetic Consortium scores). These were used as instruments in a mendelian randomization analysis in 2 prospective cohort studies. A genetically predicted 1 mmol/L higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration was associated with a higher common CIMT by 0.03 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.04) and 0.04 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.06) based on the Cardiochip and Global Lipids Genetic Consortium scores, respectively. HDL-C and TGs were not causally associated with CIMT. Conclusions-Our findings confirm a causal relationship between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and CIMT but not with HDL-C and TGs. At present, the suitability of CIMT as a surrogate marker in trials of cardiovascular therapies targeting HDL-C and TGs is questionable and requires further study. (Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2013;6:63-72.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available