Using Mendelian Randomization to Improve the Design of Randomized Trials
- 11 January 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine
- Vol. 11 (7), a040980
- https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a040980
Abstract
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.This publication has 63 references indexed in Scilit:
- 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 AnalysisJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2012
- Effects of Dalcetrapib in Patients with a Recent Acute Coronary SyndromeThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170 000 participants in 26 randomised trialsThe Lancet, 2010
- Effects of Combination Lipid Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes MellitusThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2010
- Mendelian randomization: Using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiologyStatistics in Medicine, 2008
- Clustered Environments and Randomized Genes: A Fundamental Distinction between Conventional and Genetic EpidemiologyPLoS Medicine, 2007
- Effects of Torcetrapib in Patients at High Risk for Coronary EventsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2007
- Current controversies in data monitoring for clinical trialsClinical Trials, 2006
- Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitationsInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2004
- Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practiceand problemsStatistics in Medicine, 2002