Comparison of variance estimators for meta-analysis of instrumental variable estimates

Joint Genetic Inhibition of PCSK9 and CETP and the Association With Coronary Artery Disease: A Factorial Mendelian Randomization Study

Importance

Cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition (CETP) has been shown to increase levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and reduce levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Current LDL-C target attainment is low, and novel phase 3 trials are underway to investigate whether CETP inhibitors result in reduction of cardiovascular disease risk in high-risk patients who may be treated with PCSK9-inhibiting agents.

Objective

To explore the associations of combined reduction of CETP and PCSK9 concentrations with risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) and other clinical and safety outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Two-sample 2 × 2 factorial Mendelian randomization study in a general population sample that includes data for UK Biobank participants of European ancestry.

Exposures

Separate genetic scores were constructed for CETP and PCSK9 plasma protein concentrations, which were combined to determine the associations of combined genetically reduced CETP and PCSK9 concentrations with disease.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Blood lipid and lipoprotein concentrations, blood pressure, CAD, age-related macular degeneration, type 2 diabetes, any stroke and ischemic stroke, Alzheimer disease, vascular dementia, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, asthma, and multiple sclerosis.

Results

Data for 425 354 UKB participants were included; the median (IQR) age was 59 years (51-64), and 229 399 (53.9%) were female. The associations of lower CETP and lower PCSK9 concentrations with CAD are similar when scaled per 10-mg/dL reduction in LDL-C concentrations (CETP: odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.81; PCSK9: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.79). Combined exposure to lower CETP and PCSK9 concentrations was associated with an additive magnitude with lipids and all outcomes, and we did not observe any nonadditive interactions, most notably for LDL-C (CETP: effect size, -1.11 mg/dL; 95% CI, -1.40 to -0.82; PCSK9: effect size, -2.13 mg/dL; 95% CI, -2.43 to -1.84; combined: effect size, -3.47 mg/dL; 95% CI, -3.76 to -3.18; P = .34 for interaction) and CAD (CETP: OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.00; PCSK9: OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97; combined: OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.93; P = .83 for interaction). In addition, when corrected for multiple testing, lower CETP concentrations were associated with increased age-related macular degeneration (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.19).

Conclusions and Relevance

Our results suggest that joint inhibition of CETP and PCSK9 has additive effects on lipid traits and disease risk, including a lower risk of CAD. Further research may explore whether a combination of CETP- and PCSK9-related therapeutics can benefit high-risk patients who are unable to reach treatment targets with existing options.

Adjusting for bias in unblinded randomized controlled trials

It may not always be possible to blind participants of a randomized controlled trial for treatment allocation. As a result, estimators of the actual treatment effect may be biased. In this paper, we will extend a novel method, originally introduced in genetic research, for instrumental variable meta-analysis, adjusting for bias due to unblinding of trial participants. Using simulation studies, this novel method, "Egger Correction for non-Adherence", is introduced and compared to the performance of the "intention-to-treat," "as-treated," and conventional "instrumental variable" estimators. Scenarios considered (time-varying) non-adherence, confounding, and between-study heterogeneity. The effect of treatment on a binary endpoint was quantified by means of a risk difference. In all scenarios with unblinded treatment allocation, the Egger Correction for non-Adherence method was the least biased estimator. However, unless the variation in adherence was relatively large, precision was lacking, and power did not surpass 0.50. As a comparison, in a meta-analysis of blinded randomized controlled trials, power of the conventional IV estimator was 1.00 versus at most 0.14 for the Egger Correction for non-Adherence estimator. Due to this lack of precision and power, we suggest to use this method mainly as a sensitivity analysis.