This paper provides guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations. It is aimed at practitioners seeking to undertake analyses and write up their findings, and at journal editors and reviewers seeking to assess Mendelian randomization manuscripts. The guidelines are divided into nine sections: motivation and scope, data sources, choice of genetic variants, variant harmonization, primary analysis, supplementary and sensitivity analyses (one section on robust statistical methods and one on other approaches), data presentation, and interpretation. These guidelines will be updated based on feedback from the community and advances in the field. Updates will be made periodically as needed, and at least every 18 months.

This paper provides guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations. It is aimed at practitioners seeking to undertake analyses and write up their findings, and at journal editors and reviewers seeking to assess Mendelian randomization manuscripts. The guidelines are divided into nine sections: motivation and scope, data sources, choice of genetic variants, variant harmonization, primary analysis, supplementary and sensitivity analyses (one section on robust methods and one on other approaches), data presentation, and interpretation. These guidelines will be updated based on feedback from the community and advances in the field. Updates will be made periodically as needed, and at least every 18 months.

This paper provides guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations. It is aimed at practitioners seeking to undertake analyses and write up their findings, and at journal editors and reviewers seeking to assess Mendelian randomization manuscripts. The guidelines are divided into ten sections: motivation and scope, data sources, choice of genetic variants, variant harmonization, primary analysis, supplementary and sensitivity analyses (one section on robust statistical methods and one on other approaches), extensions and additional analyses, data presentation, and interpretation. These guidelines will be updated based on feedback from the community and advances in the field. Updates will be made periodically as needed, and at least every 24 months.

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been associated with an increased risk of developing several common cancers, but it is unclear whether this association is causal. We aimed to summarize the evidence on T2DM and cancer and evaluate the validity of associations from both observational and Mendelian randomization (MR) studies. Methods: We performed an umbrella review of the evidence across meta-analyses of observational studies that examined associations of T2DM with risk of developing or dying from site-specific cancers, and MR studies that explored the potential causal association of T2DM and associated biomarkers with cancer risk. Results: We identified eligible observational meta-analyses that assessed associations between T2DM and cancer incidence for 18 cancer sites, cancer mortality for seven sites, and cancer incidence or mortality for four sites. Positive associations between T2DM and six cancers reached strong or highly suggestive evidence. We found eight MR studies assessing the association of genetically predicted T2DM and seven and eight studies assessing the association of genetically predicted fasting insulin or fasting glucose concentrations, respectively, upon site-specific cancers. Positive associations were found between genetically predicted T2DM and fasting insulin and risk of six cancers. There was no association between genetically predicted fasting plasma glucose and cancer except for squamous cell lung carcinoma. Conclusions: We found robust observational evidence for the association between T2DM and colorectal, hepatocellular, gallbladder, breast, endometrial, and pancreatic cancers. Impact: Potential causal associations were identified for genetically predicted T2DM and fasting insulin concentrations and risk of endometrial, pancreas, kidney, breast, lung, and cervical cancers.

Observational studies have identified height as a strong risk factor for atrial fibrillation, but this finding may be limited by residual confounding. We aimed to examine genetic variation in height within the Mendelian randomization (MR) framework to determine whether height has a causal effect on risk of atrial fibrillation. In summary-level analyses, MR was performed using summary statistics from genome-wide association studies of height (GIANT/UK Biobank; 693,529 individuals) and atrial fibrillation (AFGen; 65,446 cases and 522,744 controls), finding that each 1-SD increase in genetically predicted height increased the odds of atrial fibrillation (odds ratio [OR] 1.34; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.40; p = 5 × 10⁻⁴²). This result remained consistent in sensitivity analyses with MR methods that make different assumptions about the presence of pleiotropy, and when accounting for the effects of traditional cardiovascular risk factors on atrial fibrillation. Individual-level phenome-wide association studies of height and a height genetic risk score were performed among 6,567 European-ancestry participants of the Penn Medicine Biobank (median age at enrollment 63 years, interquartile range 55–72; 38% female; recruitment 2008–2015), confirming prior observational associations between height and atrial fibrillation. Individual-level MR confirmed that each 1-SD increase in height increased the odds of atrial fibrillation, including adjustment for clinical and echocardiographic confounders (OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.50 to 2.40; p = 0.007). The main limitations of this study include potential bias from pleiotropic effects of genetic variants, and lack of generalizability of individual-level findings to non-European populations. In this study, we observed evidence that height is likely a positive causal risk factor for atrial fibrillation. Further study is needed to determine whether risk prediction tools including height or anthropometric risk factors can be used to improve screening and primary prevention of atrial fibrillation, and whether biological pathways involved in height may offer new targets for treatment of atrial fibrillation.