Mendelian randomization : a review of methods for the prevention, assessment, and discussion of pleiotropy in studies using the fat mass and obesity-associated gene as an instrument for adiposity

Abstract

Pleiotropy assessment is critical for the validity of Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses, and its management remains a challenging task for researchers. This review examines how the authors of MR studies address bias due to pleiotropy in practice. We reviewed Pubmed, Medline, Embase and Web of Science for MR studies published before 21 May 2020 that used at least one single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) gene as instrumental variable (IV) for body mass index, irrespective of the outcome. We reviewed: 1) the approaches used to prevent pleiotropy, 2) the methods cited to detect or control the independence or the exclusion restriction assumption highlighting whether pleiotropy assessment was explicitly stated to justify the use of these methods, and 3) the discussion of findings related to pleiotropy. We included 128 studies, of which thirty-three reported one approach to prevent pleiotropy, such as the use of multiple (independent) SNPs combined in a genetic risk score as IVs. One hundred and twenty studies cited at least one method to detect or account for pleiotropy, including robust and other IV estimation methods (n = 70), methods for detection of heterogeneity between estimated causal effects across IVs (n = 72), methods to detect or account associations between IV and outcome outside thought the exposure (n = 85), and other methods (n = 5). Twenty-one studies suspected IV invalidity, of which 16 explicitly referred to pleiotropy, and six incriminating FTO SNPs. Most reviewed MR studies have cited methods to prevent or to detect or control bias due to pleiotropy. These methods are heterogeneous, their triangulation should increase the reliability of causal inference.