Cited by 296Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Association of Lipid Fractions With Risks for Coronary Artery Disease and Diabetes

Open access
White, Jon, Swerdlow, Daniel I., Preiss, David, Fairhurst-Hunter, Zammy, Keating, Brendan J., Asselbergs, Folkert W., Sattar, Naveed, Humphries, Steve E. +2 more·2016·JAMA Cardiology

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is causally related to coronary artery disease (CAD), but the relevance of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglycerides (TGs) is uncertain. Lowering of LDL-C levels by statin therapy modestly increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, but it is unknown whether this effect is specific to statins. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the associations of 3 routinely measured lipid fractions with CAD and diabetes through mendelian randomization (MR) using conventional MR and making use of newer approaches, such as multivariate MR and MR-Egger, that address the pleiotropy of genetic instruments where relevant. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Published data from genome-wide association studies were used to construct genetic instruments and then applied to investigate associations between lipid fractions and the risk of CAD and diabetes using MR approaches that took into account pleiotropy of genetic instruments. The study was conducted from March 12 to December 31, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coronary artery disease and diabetes. RESULTS: Genetic instruments composed of 130 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were used for LDL-C (explaining 7.9% of its variance), 140 SNPs for HDL-C (6.6% of variance), and 140 SNPs for TGs (5.9% of variance). A 1-SD genetically instrumented elevation in LDL-C levels (equivalent to 38 mg/dL) and TG levels (equivalent to 89 mg/dL) was associated with higher CAD risk; odds ratios (ORs) were 1.68 (95% CI, 1.51-1.87) for LDL-C and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.13-1.45) for TGs. The corresponding OR for HDL-C (equivalent to a 16-mg/dL increase) was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.85-1.06). All 3 lipid traits were associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes. The ORs were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.71-0.88) for LDL-C and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) for HDL-C per 1-SD elevation. For TG, the MR estimates for diabetes were inconsistent, with MR-Egger giving an OR of 0.83 (95%CI, 0.72-0.95) per 1-SD elevation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Routinely measured lipid fractions exhibit contrasting associations with the risk of CAD and diabetes. Increased LDL-C, HDL-C, and possibly TG levels are associated with a lower risk of diabetes. This information will be relevant to the design of clinical trials of lipid-modifying agents, which should carefully monitor participants for dysglycemia and the incidence of diabetes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamacardio.2016.1884

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pharmacological modification of C-reactive protein is unlikely to be beneficial to coronary heart disease, whereas randomized evidence demonstrates the value of targeting biomarkers further upstream, for example interleukin-6 receptor or interleukin 1-beta.

    “as pharmacological modification of C-reactive protein is unlikely to be beneficial to CHD 51 , whereas randomized evidence demonstrates the value of targeting biomarkers further upstream, e.g. interleukin-6 receptor 21,54 or interleukin 1-beta 52”
  • MR is being widely applied to quantitative traits with the aim of discovering modifiable risk factors for disease that are causal and amenable to therapeutic modification.

    “With increasing availability of large-scale phenotyping (and genotyping), MR is being widely applied to quantitative traits (e.g. markers or adiposity, such as body mass index 13-16 ; blood lipids such as HDL-cholesterol 17-19 ; inflammation-related proteins such as interleukin-6 receptor 20,21 12 ) with the aim of discovering modifiable risk factors for disease that are causal and amenable to the”
  • Genetic variants used to mimic pharmacological inhibition of IL6R lead to a paradoxical increase in IL6 concentrations in the blood.

    “In this latter example, genetic variants used to mimic pharmacological inhibition of IL6R (and thus the effects of inhibiting pathways downstream of IL6) lead to a paradoxical increase in IL6 concentrations in the blood 21 ,”
  • Genetic variants around the gene encoding interleukin 6 receptor (IL6R) show an association with risk of CHD.

    “Exploring inflammation-related proteins more upstream, genetic variants around the gene encoding interleukin 6 receptor (IL6R) shows an association with risk of CHD 21,54 .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
White, J., Swerdlow, D. I., Preiss, D., Fairhurst-Hunter, Z., Keating, B. J., Asselbergs, F. W., Sattar, N., Humphries, S. E., Hingorani, A. D., & Holmes, M. V.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Farr Institute (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Centre for Human Genetics (GB)
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • British Heart Foundation (GB)
Corresponding author
Holmes, Michael V.
Venue
JAMA Cardiology
Published
2016-09-01
Volume
1
Issue
6
Pages
692
ISSN
2380-6583 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2481252033
Cited by
293
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 5
FWCI
38.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • JAMA Cardiology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0515-10091, ACF-2015-21-003)
  • British Heart Foundation (PG 08/008, RG/10/12/28456)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K006584/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, lipid fractions, statin therapy, pleiotropy, genetic instruments, multivariate Mendelian randomization, MR-Egger, causal inference, single nucleotide polymorphisms, polygenic risk score, cardiovascular risk prediction
MeSH terms
Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Lipids, Cholesterol, HDL, Cholesterol, LDL, Risk Factors, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genome-Wide Association Study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review