Evaluating the relationship between circulating lipoprotein lipids and apolipoproteins with risk of coronary heart disease: A multivariable Mendelian randomisation analysis

Background Circulating lipoprotein lipids cause coronary heart disease (CHD). However, the precise way in which one or more lipoprotein lipid-related entities account for this relationship remains unclear. Using genetic instruments for lipoprotein lipid traits implemented through multivariable Mendelian randomisation (MR), we sought to compare their causal roles in the aetiology of CHD. Methods and findings We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of circulating non-fasted lipoprotein lipid traits in the UK Biobank (UKBB) for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B to identify lipid-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Using data from CARDIoGRAMplusC4D for CHD (consisting of 60,801 cases and 123,504 controls), we performed univariable and multivariable MR analyses. Similar GWAS and MR analyses were conducted for high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I. The GWAS of lipids and apolipoproteins in the UKBB included between 393,193 and 441,016 individuals in whom the mean age was 56.9 y (range 39–73 y) and of whom 54.2% were women. The mean (standard deviation) lipid concentrations were LDL cholesterol 3.57 (0.87) mmol/L and HDL cholesterol 1.45 (0.38) mmol/L, and the median triglycerides was 1.50 (IQR = 1.11) mmol/L. The mean (standard deviation) values for apolipoproteins B and A-I were 1.03 (0.24) g/L and 1.54 (0.27) g/L, respectively. The GWAS identified multiple independent SNPs associated at P < 5 × 10−8 for LDL cholesterol (220), apolipoprotein B (n = 255), triglycerides (440), HDL cholesterol (534), and apolipoprotein A-I (440). Between 56%–93% of SNPs identified for each lipid trait had not been previously reported in large-scale GWASs. Almost half (46%) of these SNPs were associated at P < 5 × 10−8 with more than one lipid-related trait. Assessed individually using MR, LDL cholesterol (odds ratio [OR] 1.66 per 1-standard-deviation–higher trait; 95% CI: 1.49–1.86; P < 0.001), triglycerides (OR 1.34; 95% CI: 1.25–1.44; P < 0.001) and apolipoprotein B (OR 1.73; 95% CI: 1.56–1.91; P < 0.001) had effect estimates consistent with a higher risk of CHD. In multivariable MR, only apolipoprotein B (OR 1.92; 95% CI: 1.31–2.81; P < 0.001) retained a robust effect, with the estimate for LDL cholesterol (OR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.57–1.27; P = 0.44) reversing and that of triglycerides (OR 1.12; 95% CI: 1.02–1.23; P = 0.01) becoming weaker. Individual MR analyses showed a 1-standard-deviation–higher HDL cholesterol (OR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.75–0.86; P < 0.001) and apolipoprotein A-I (OR 0.83; 95% CI: 0.77–0.89; P < 0.001) to lower the risk of CHD, but these effect estimates attenuated substantially to the null on accounting for apolipoprotein B. A limitation is that, owing to the nature of lipoprotein metabolism, measures related to the composition of lipoprotein particles are highly correlated, creating a challenge in making exclusive interpretations on causation of individual components. Conclusions These findings suggest that apolipoprotein B is the predominant trait that accounts for the aetiological relationship of lipoprotein lipids with risk of CHD.

[1]  ESC / EAS Guidelines for the Treatment of Dyslipidemias: Lipid Modification to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk , 2020, Digital Doctor.

[2]  G. Davey Smith,et al.  Correlation without a cause: an epidemiological odyssey. , 2020, International journal of epidemiology.

[3]  M. Pencina,et al.  Apolipoprotein B Particles and Cardiovascular Disease: A Narrative Review. , 2019, JAMA cardiology.

[4]  A. Peters,et al.  Application of non-HDL cholesterol for population-based cardiovascular risk stratification: results from the Multinational Cardiovascular Risk Consortium , 2019, The Lancet.

[5]  George Davey Smith,et al.  Guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations: update for summer 2023 , 2019, Wellcome open research.

[6]  G. Hindricks,et al.  2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: Lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. , 2019, Atherosclerosis.

[7]  M. Ala-Korpela The culprit is the carrier, not the loads: cholesterol, triglycerides and apolipoprotein B in atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease. , 2019, International journal of epidemiology.

[8]  P. Libby,et al.  Atherosclerosis , 2019, Nature Reviews Disease Primers.

[9]  S. Mora,et al.  Cholesterol Insights and Controversies From the UK Biobank Study. , 2019, Circulation.

[10]  J. Pell,et al.  Comparison of Conventional Lipoprotein Tests and Apolipoproteins in the Prediction of Cardiovascular Disease , 2019, Circulation.

[11]  Daniel E Forman,et al.  2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  M. Pencina,et al.  ApoB: The Power of Physiology to Transform the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease , 2019 .

[13]  M. Holmes Human Genetics and Drug Development. , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  S. Greenland,et al.  Scientists rise up against statistical significance , 2019, Nature.

[15]  Hemani,et al.  MRC IEU UK Biobank GWAS pipeline version 2 , 2019 .

[16]  M. Holmes,et al.  What is ‘LDL cholesterol’? , 2019, Nature Reviews Cardiology.

[17]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Association of Triglyceride-Lowering LPL Variants and LDL-C–Lowering LDLR Variants With Risk of Coronary Heart Disease , 2019, JAMA.

[18]  P. Donnelly,et al.  The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data , 2018, Nature.

[19]  D. Rader Apolipoprotein A-I Infusion Therapies for Coronary Disease: Two Outs in the Ninth Inning and Swinging for the Fences. , 2018, JAMA cardiology.

[20]  G. Davey Smith,et al.  Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: a guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[21]  Po-Ru Loh,et al.  Mixed-model association for biobank-scale datasets , 2018, Nature Genetics.

[22]  G. Davey Smith,et al.  Evaluating the potential role of pleiotropy in Mendelian randomization studies , 2018, Human molecular genetics.

[23]  F. Windmeijer,et al.  An examination of multivariable Mendelian randomization in the single-sample and two-sample summary data settings , 2018, bioRxiv.

[24]  Valeriia Haberland,et al.  The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome , 2018, eLife.

[25]  F. Chen,et al.  Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients With Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease , 2018 .

[26]  Brian A Ference,et al.  Association of Genetic Variants Related to CETP Inhibitors and Statins With Lipoprotein Levels and Cardiovascular Risk , 2017, JAMA.

[27]  Jessica M B Rees,et al.  Extending the MR‐Egger method for multivariable Mendelian randomization to correct for both measured and unmeasured pleiotropy , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[28]  Robert M. Maier,et al.  Causal associations between risk factors and common diseases inferred from GWAS summary data , 2017, Nature Communications.

[29]  G. Smith,et al.  Mendelian randomization in cardiometabolic disease: challenges in evaluating causality , 2017, Nature Reviews Cardiology.

[30]  Richard G. Lee,et al.  Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects of ANGPTL3 Antisense Oligonucleotides , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[31]  Fernando Pires Hartwig,et al.  Robust inference in summary data Mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption , 2017, bioRxiv.

[32]  Virgilio Gómez-Rubio,et al.  ggplot2 - Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd Edition) , 2017 .

[33]  N. Sheehan,et al.  A framework for the investigation of pleiotropy in two‐sample summary data Mendelian randomization , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[34]  Szilard Voros,et al.  Variation in PCSK9 and HMGCR and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[35]  Peter Sandercock,et al.  Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy , 2016, The Lancet.

[36]  J. Borén,et al.  The central role of arterial retention of cholesterol-rich apolipoprotein-B-containing lipoproteins in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis: a triumph of simplicity , 2016, Current opinion in lipidology.

[37]  Brian A Ference,et al.  Association Between Lowering LDL-C and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Among Different Therapeutic Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2016, JAMA.

[38]  N. Sheehan,et al.  Assessing the suitability of summary data for two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses using MR-Egger regression: the role of the I2 statistic , 2016, International journal of epidemiology.

[39]  S. Humphries,et al.  Association of Lipid Fractions With Risks for Coronary Artery Disease and Diabetes. , 2016, JAMA cardiology.

[40]  G. Davey Smith,et al.  Consistent Estimation in Mendelian Randomization with Some Invalid Instruments Using a Weighted Median Estimator , 2016, Genetic epidemiology.

[41]  M. Pirinen,et al.  Genome-wide study for circulating metabolites identifies 62 loci and reveals novel systemic effects of LPA , 2016, Nature Communications.

[42]  Alexander E. Lopez,et al.  Inactivating Variants in ANGPTL4 and Risk of Coronary Artery Disease. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[43]  Sebastian M. Armasu,et al.  A comprehensive 1000 Genomes-based genome-wide association meta-analysis of coronary artery disease , 2015, Nature Genetics.

[44]  R. Brook,et al.  Effect of naturally random allocation to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on the risk of coronary heart disease mediated by polymorphisms in NPC1L1, HMGCR, or both: a 2 × 2 factorial Mendelian randomization study. , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[45]  Barry J. Davis,et al.  Efficacy and safety of LDL-lowering therapy among men and women: meta-analysis of individual data from 174 000 participants in 27 randomised trials , 2015, The Lancet.

[46]  G. Davey Smith,et al.  Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression , 2015, International journal of epidemiology.

[47]  J. Goldstein,et al.  A Century of Cholesterol and Coronaries: From Plaques to Genes to Statins , 2015, Cell.

[48]  Tom R. Gaunt,et al.  Metabolite profiling and cardiovascular event risk: a prospective study of 3 population-based cohorts. , 2015, Circulation.

[49]  Tom R. Gaunt,et al.  Metabolite Profiling and Cardiovascular Event RiskCLINICAL PERSPECTIVE , 2015 .

[50]  P. Elliott,et al.  UK Biobank: An Open Access Resource for Identifying the Causes of a Wide Range of Complex Diseases of Middle and Old Age , 2015, PLoS medicine.

[51]  Carson C Chow,et al.  Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets , 2014, GigaScience.

[52]  B. Berger,et al.  Efficient Bayesian mixed model analysis increases association power in large cohorts , 2014, Nature Genetics.

[53]  G. Davey Smith,et al.  Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies , 2014, Human molecular genetics.

[54]  Tanya M. Teslovich,et al.  Discovery and refinement of loci associated with lipid levels , 2013, Nature Genetics.

[55]  B. Nordestgaard,et al.  Remnant cholesterol as a causal risk factor for ischemic heart disease. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[56]  K. Williams,et al.  Effect of long-term exposure to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol beginning early in life on the risk of coronary heart disease: a Mendelian randomization analysis. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[57]  Kenny Q. Ye,et al.  An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes , 2012, Nature.

[58]  J. Gallacher,et al.  Lipid-related markers and cardiovascular disease prediction. , 2012, JAMA.

[59]  C. Furberg,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, Non-High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, and Apolipoprotein B as Markers of Cardiovascular Risk , 2011, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[60]  Jonathan C. Cohen,et al.  Exome sequencing, ANGPTL3 mutations, and familial combined hypolipidemia. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[61]  R. Collins,et al.  Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170 000 participants in 26 randomised trials , 2010, The Lancet.

[62]  M. Flather Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170 000 participants in 26 randomised trials , 2010 .

[63]  A. Morris,et al.  Data quality control in genetic case-control association studies , 2010, Nature Protocols.

[64]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package , 2010 .

[65]  J. Danesh,et al.  Major lipids, apolipoproteins, and risk of vascular disease. , 2009, JAMA.

[66]  Hadley Wickham,et al.  ggplot2 - Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd Edition) , 2017 .

[67]  Robert A. Hegele,et al.  Plasma lipoproteins: genetic influences and clinical implications , 2009, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[68]  Samia Mora,et al.  Fasting Compared With Nonfasting Lipids and Apolipoproteins for Predicting Incident Cardiovascular Events , 2008, Circulation.

[69]  P. Elliott,et al.  The UK Biobank sample handling and storage protocol for the collection, processing and archiving of human blood and urine. , 2008, International journal of epidemiology.

[70]  S. Ebrahim,et al.  'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? , 2003, International journal of epidemiology.

[71]  Jonathan A C Sterne,et al.  Sifting the evidence—what's wrong with significance tests? , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[72]  K. Williams,et al.  The response-to-retention hypothesis of early atherogenesis. , 1995, Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology.

[73]  R. Collins,et al.  The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials. , 2012, Lancet.

[74]  A. Phillips,et al.  How independent are "independent" effects? Relative risk estimation when correlated exposures are measured imprecisely. , 1991, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[75]  Edinburgh Research Explorer Mendelian randomization of blood lipids for coronary heart disease , 2022 .