Using Mendelian Randomization to Improve the Design of Randomized Trials

Randomized controlled trials and Mendelian randomization studies are two study designs that provide randomized evidence in human biological and medical research. Both exploit the power of randomization to provide unconfounded estimates of causal effect. However, randomized trials and Mendelian randomization studies have very different study designs and scientific objectives. As a result, despite sometimes being referred to as nature's randomized trial, a Mendelian randomization study cannot be used to replace a randomized trial but instead provides complementary information. In this review, we explain the similarities and differences between randomized trials and Mendelian randomization studies, and suggest several ways that Mendelian randomization can be used to directly inform and improve the design of randomized trials illustrated with practical examples. We conclude by describing how Mendelian randomization studies can employ the principles of trial design to be framed as naturally randomized trials that can provide a template for the design of future randomized trials evaluating therapies directed against genetically validated targets.

Automated summary

Randomized controlled trials and Mendelian randomization studies both utilize randomization to provide unbiased estimates of causal effects, but have distinct scientific objectives and study designs. Mendelian randomization studies cannot replace randomized trials but offer complementary information.