Evidence Hub

Assessment of the genetic and clinical determinants of fracture risk: genome wide association and mendelian randomisation study

Trajanoska K, Morris JA, Oei L, Zheng HF, Evans DM, Kiel DP, Ohlsson C, Richards JB et al.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2018

247 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To identify the genetic determinants of fracture risk and assess the role of 15 clinical risk factors on osteoporotic fracture risk. Design Meta-analysis of genome wide association studies (GWAS) and a two-sample mendelian randomisation approach. Setting 25 cohorts from Europe, United States, east Asia, and Australia with genome wide genotyping and fracture data. Participants A discovery set of 37 857 fracture cases and 227 116 controls; with replication in up to 147 200 fracture cases and 150 085 controls. Fracture cases were defined as individuals (>18 years old) who had fractures at any skeletal site confirmed by medical, radiological, or questionnaire reports. Instrumental variable analyses were performed to estimate effects of 15 selected clinical risk factors for fracture in a two-sample mendelian randomisation framework, using the largest previously published GWAS meta-analysis of each risk factor. Results Of 15 fracture associated loci identified, all were also associated with bone mineral density and mapped to genes clustering in pathways known to be critical to bone biology (eg, SOST, WNT16, and ESR1) or novel pathways (FAM210A, GRB10, and ETS2). Mendelian randomisation analyses showed a clear effect of bone mineral density on fracture risk. One standard deviation decrease in genetically determined bone mineral density of the femoral neck was associated with a 55% increase in fracture risk (odds ratio 1.55 (95% confidence interval 1.48 to 1.63;…

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.

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