Evidence Hub

SARS-CoV-2 neurovascular invasion supported by Mendelian randomization

Pan Y, Zhang J, He T

Journal of translational medicine, 2024

2,942,817 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is known to affect vessels and nerves and can be easily visualized in the retina. However, the effect of SARS-CoV-2 on retinal morphology remains controversial. In the present research, we applied Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis to estimate the association between SARS-CoV-2 and changes in the thickness of the inner retina.

Methods: Two-sample MR analysis was conducted using summary-level data from 3 open genome-wide association study databases concerning COVID-19 infection (2,942,817 participants) and COVID-19 hospitalization (2,401,372 participants); moreover, the dataset of inner retina thickness, including the macular retinal nerve fiber layer (mRNFL) and macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (mGCIPL), included 31,434 optical coherence tomography (OCT) images derived from healthy UK Biobank participants. All the participants were of European ancestry. The inverse variance weighted (IVW) meta-analysis was used as our primary method. Various complementary MR approaches were established to provide robust causal estimates under different assumptions.

Results: According to our MR analysis, genetically predicted COVID-19 infection was associated with an increased risk of mRNFL and mGCIPL thickness (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.20-2.52, P = 3.58 × 10-3; OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.49-3.96, P = 3.6 × 10-4). The other MR methods produced consistent results. However, genetically predicted COVID-19 hospitalization…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,942,817 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free