Evidence Hub

Genetic variations in anti-diabetic drug targets and COPD risk: evidence from mendelian randomization

Su Y, Zhang Y, Xu J

BMC pulmonary medicine, 2024

344,182 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

Background: Previous research has emphasized the potential benefits of anti-diabetic medications in inhibiting the exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), yet the role of anti-diabetic drugs on COPD risk remains uncertain.

Methods: This study employed a Mendelian randomization (MR) approach to evaluate the causal association of genetic variations related to six classes of anti-diabetic drug targets with COPD. The primary outcome for COPD was obtained from the Global Biobank Meta-analysis Initiative (GBMI) consortium, encompassing a meta-analysis of 12 cohorts with 81,568 cases and 1,310,798 controls. Summary-level data for HbA1c was derived from the UK Biobank, involving 344,182 individuals. Positive control analysis was conducted for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) to validate the choice of instrumental variables. The study applied Summary-data-based MR (SMR) and two-sample MR for effect estimation and further adopted colocalization analysis to verify evidence of genetic variations.

Results: SMR analysis revealed that elevated KCNJ11 gene expression levels in blood correlated with reduced COPD risk (OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.79-0.95; p = 0.002), whereas an increase in DPP4 expression corresponded with an increased COPD incidence (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.03-1.35; p = 0.022). Additionally, the primary method within MR analysis demonstrated a positive correlation between PPARG-mediated HbA1c and both FEV1 (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.02-1.13; P = 0.013) and FEV1/FVC…

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: 344,182 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