Homocysteine and Coronary Heart Disease: Meta-analysis of MTHFR Case-Control Studies, Avoiding Publication Bias

Robert Clarke, Derrick A Bennett, Sarah Parish, Petra Verhoef, Mariska Dötsch-Klerk, Mark Lathrop, Peng Xu, Børge G Nordestgaard, Hilma Holm, Jemma C Hopewell, Danish Saleheen, Toshihiro Tanaka, Sonia S Anand, John C Chambers, Marcus E Kleber, Willem H Ouwehand, Yoshiji Yamada, Clara Elbers, Bas Peters, Alexandre F R Stewart, Muredach M Reilly, Barbara Thorand, Salim Yusuf, James C Engert, Themistocles L Assimes, Jaspal Kooner, John Danesh, Hugh Watkins, Nilesh J Samani, Rory Collins, Richard Peto and for the MTHFR Studies Collaborative Group

PLOS Medicine, 2012, vol. 9, issue 2, 1-12

Abstract: Robert Clarke and colleagues conduct a meta-analysis of unpublished datasets to examine the causal relationship between elevation of homocysteine levels in the blood and the risk of coronary heart disease. Their data suggest that an increase in homocysteine levels is not likely to result in an increase in risk of coronary heart disease. Background: Moderately elevated blood levels of homocysteine are weakly correlated with coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, but causality remains uncertain. When folate levels are low, the TT genotype of the common C677T polymorphism (rs1801133) of the methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase gene (MTHFR) appreciably increases homocysteine levels, so “Mendelian randomization” studies using this variant as an instrumental variable could help test causality. Methods and Findings: Nineteen unpublished datasets were obtained (total 48,175 CHD cases and 67,961 controls) in which multiple genetic variants had been measured, including MTHFR C677T. These datasets did not include measurements of blood homocysteine, but homocysteine levels would be expected to be about 20% higher with TT than with CC genotype in the populations studied. In meta-analyses of these unpublished datasets, the case-control CHD odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI comparing TT versus CC homozygotes was 1.02 (0.98–1.07; p = 0.28) overall, and 1.01 (0.95–1.07) in unsupplemented low-folate populations. By contrast, in a slightly updated meta-analysis of the 86 published studies (28,617 CHD cases and 41,857 controls), the OR was 1.15 (1.09–1.21), significantly discrepant (p = 0.001) with the OR in the unpublished datasets. Within the meta-analysis of published studies, the OR was 1.12 (1.04–1.21) in the 14 larger studies (those with variance of log OR

Date: 2012
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001177 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/fil ... 01177&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pmed00:1001177

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001177

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Medicine from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosmedicine (plosmedicine@plos.org).