Cardiovascular and Metabolic Risk

Genetically Driven Hyperglycemia Increases Risk of Coronary Artery Disease Separately From Type 2 Diabetes

  1. Jordi Merino1,2,3,
  2. Aaron Leong2,4,
  3. Daniel C. Posner5,
  4. Bianca Porneala4,
  5. Lluís Masana3,
  6. Josée Dupuis5,6 and
  7. Jose C. Florez1,2,7⇑
  1. 1Diabetes Unit and Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
  2. 2Programs in Metabolism and Medical & Population Genetics, Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA
  3. 3Vascular Medicine and Metabolism Unit, Research Unit on Lipids and Atherosclerosis, Sant Joan University Hospital, Institut Investigació Sanitaria Pere VirgiliI, Rovira i Virgili University, CIBERDEM, Reus, Spain
  4. 4Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
  5. 5Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA
  6. 6National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study, Framingham, MA
  7. 7Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
  1. Corresponding author: Jose C. Florez, jcflorez{at}partners.org.
Diabetes Care 2017 May; 40(5): 687-693. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-2625

Abstract

OBJECTIVE This study tested the hypothesis that genetically raised hyperglycemia increases coronary artery disease (CAD) risk separately from the risk conferred by type 2 diabetes as a whole.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted a Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis using summary-level statistics from the largest published meta-analyses of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for fasting glucose (FG) (n = 133,010 participants free of diabetes) and CAD (n = 63,746 case subjects and 130,681 control subjects) of predominantly European ancestry. FG-increasing variants associated with type 2 diabetes from the largest GWAS for type 2 diabetes were excluded. Variants with pleiotropic effects on other CAD risk factors (blood lipids, blood pressure, and obesity) were excluded using summary-level data from the largest published GWAS. Data from the Framingham Heart Study were used to validate the MR instrument and to build an FG genetic risk score (GRS).

RESULTS In an instrumental variable analysis comprising 12 FG-raising variants, a 1 mmol/L increase in FG revealed an effect-size estimate of 1.43 CAD odds (95% CI 1.14–1.79). The association was preserved after excluding variants for heterogeneity and pleiotropic effects on other CAD risk factors (odds ratio [OR] 1.33 [95% CI 1.02–1.73]). The 12 FG-increasing variants did not significantly increase type 2 diabetes risk (OR 1.05 [95% CI 0.91–1.23]), and its prevalence was constant across FG GRS quintiles (P = 0.72).

CONCLUSIONS Our data support that genetic predisposition to hyperglycemia raises the odds of CAD separately from type 2 diabetes and other CAD risk factors. These findings suggest that modulating glycemia may provide cardiovascular benefit.

Introduction

Diabetes, a disease characterized by persistent hyperglycemia, is a global public health crisis affecting 415 million people worldwide (1). Prospective epidemiological data have suggested that individuals with type 2 diabetes have a higher incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD) than those without type 2 diabetes, leading to the consideration of type 2 diabetes as a heart disease risk equivalent for the prediction of future CAD (2). However, type 2 diabetes is a complex disease, typically accompanied by increased adiposity, inflammation, oxidative stress, dyslipidemia, and high blood pressure that accelerates atherosclerosis and affects CAD (3). Thus, it is possible that the effect of type 2 diabetes on CAD is not mediated by glycemia per se but by other occult pathogenic risk factors.

Epidemiologic studies have demonstrated that the relation between glycemia and CAD risk starts within the normal blood glucose range (4,5). Yet, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that successfully lowered glucose levels and delayed the onset of type 2 diabetes in participants with prediabetes have had mixed effects on cardiovascular protection (6–10). Similarly, five separate RCTs including individuals with type 2 diabetes have failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of an intensive glucose-lowering therapeutic approach in reducing CAD events (9–14). Opposite conclusions were drawn from some recent and long-term follow-up studies suggesting that glucose lowering may provide additional cardiovascular benefit (15–19). Inconsistent findings may be partly a result of short intervention and follow-up periods for these studies, the lack of power for trials that were designed for diabetes prevention and not specifically for CAD prevention, or the inclusion of individuals with different duration of type 2 diabetes and diverse clinical characteristics.

A genetic approach can be useful in this scenario. Mendelian randomization (MR) studies may help establish a causal relationship between an exposure (i.e., glycemia) and an outcome (i.e., CAD) because they eliminate reverse confounding and short time exposures by the incorporation of a lifelong exposure (genetic variation randomly assigned at meiosis) that precedes the phenotype and is not affected by the clinical outcome (20). Two recent MR studies have estimated the effect of glycemic traits and type 2 diabetes on CAD risk (21,22). Both studies, however, included a disparate number of fasting glucose (FG)–raising variants associated with type 2 diabetes, thereby allowing for the possibility that such variants have effects on type 2 diabetes globally and not conclusively proving that modulating glycemia per se affects CAD risk.

The observation gleaned from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that an incomplete overlap exists between genetic variants that raise glycemia and those that increase type 2 diabetes risk provides a unique opportunity to unravel the relationship between hyperglycemia and CAD separately from type 2 diabetes (23,24). Here, we conducted a discovery and validation genetic instrumental analysis to test the hypothesis that genetically driven hyperglycemia, alone among all other potential metabolic contributors to type 2 diabetes and its metabolic consequences, has an effect on CAD risk.

Research Design and Methods

Data Sources and Candidate Instrument Selection

We conducted a MR analysis using summary-level statistics from the largest published meta-analyses of GWAS. Detailed explanations of consortium-specific genotyping, quality control criteria, and the requirements for each phase of the heuristic are included in the Supplementary Data (Supplementary Material 1). Briefly, we identified FG-raising genetic variants at genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10−8) in the largest published meta-analysis of GWAS of participants without diabetes by the Meta-Analyses of Glucose and Insulin-related traits Consortium (MAGIC) (n = 133,010) (24). We excluded FG-associated genetic variants nominally associated with type 2 diabetes (P < 0.05) in the largest DIAbetes Genetics Replication And Meta-analyses (DIAGRAMv3) Consortium study (n = 34,840 case subjects and 114,981 control subjects) (25). We then pruned the list of FG-increasing variants by linkage disequilibrium (r2 > 0.2). For each FG-raising variant, we sought summary-level results for CAD from the Coronary ARtery DIsease Genome wide Replication and Meta-analysis (CARDIoGRAMplusC4D) (n = 63,746 case subjects and 130,681 control subjects) (26) or CARDIoGRAMv3 (n = 22,233 case subjects and 64,762 control subjects) (27). We limited our analysis to the genetic variants with a significant false discovery rate effect (P < 0.05) for each trait. All data sets included participants who were predominantly of European descent.

Next, we interrogated each FG-raising variant for potential heterogeneity and pleiotropic genetic effects on other CAD risk factors. To detect potential pleiotropic associations between included FG-increasing risk variants with factors that may increase or protect against type 2 diabetes, we used the cross-phenotype meta-analysis method (28). This method relies on the hypothesis that each independent genetic variant has multiple phenotypic associations. We prioritized this method over other methods because it is conservative, in that it excludes any variant for which there is statistical evidence of potential pleiotropic effects, irrespective of the strength or the direction of such effects. This is especially relevant for studies conditioning on a common effect (i.e., type 2 diabetes) that will lead to the exclusion of variants associated with factors that may protect against type 2 diabetes (29). Consequently, an MR analysis that uses this procedure and yields statistically significant results is likely to reflect a true causal association between exposure and outcome.

A detailed explanation of the pleiotropy analysis source criteria and cohort-specific GWAS appears in the Supplementary Data (Supplementary Material 2). Briefly, we included cohort-specific summary level results from the largest GWAS meta-analyses for each trait, where such data were publicly available: 1) blood lipids (including LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides) (30), 2) systolic and diastolic blood pressure (31), and 3) BMI (32). For our polygenic MR instrument, we considered the most restrictive pleiotropic threshold of no pleiotropic associations (P < 0.05) on other CAD risk factors. Details of pleiotropy for each of the interrogated FG-increasing genetic variants across CAD risk factors are described in Supplementary Table 1. Finally, as an additional check for potential pleiotropy, we examined the association of our aggregate nonpleiotropic MR instrument with each of these metabolic traits.

To estimate effect sizes for FG-increasing risk variants on type 2 diabetes risk, we conducted a genetically derived approximation including 1) a subset of FG-raising variants not associated with type 2 diabetes (n = 12), 2) a set of previously reported FG-associated variants (ignoring possible association with type 2 diabetes, n = 32), and 3) a subset of previously reported variants excluding our subset of nonoverlapping variants (n = 20). Details of the included variants in each MR analysis are reported in Supplementary Table 2.

Power Calculations

Power calculations were performed using two-stage least squares regression estimates for MR studies (33). For the causal estimate of increased FG on CAD, with the available sample size of 63,746 CAD case subjects, we had 80% statistical power to detect differences in CAD odds higher than 1.03 on the causal effect between raised FG and CAD (type I error rate set at 0.05). The sample size of DIAGRAMv3 (n = 34,840 case subjects) gave us 80% statistical power to detect an effect of equivalent magnitude of type 2 diabetes odds higher than 1.04 on the causal effect between raised FG and type 2 diabetes (type I error rate set at 0.05).

Instrument Validation

MR validation was conducted using individual-level data from Offspring and Third Generation cohorts from the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) in 5,113 participants free of diabetes (34,35). We estimated the contribution of risk score variants to FG variance and FG heritability. We used genotyped variants with a genotyping success rate of ≥0.95 and variants in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (P > 1 × 10−4). When not directly genotyped, variants were imputed using HapMap2 or 1000 Genomes Project reference panels by MACH software (http://csg.sph.umich.edu/abecasis/MaCH/download/) using previously described filters (23). Uncertainty in imputation was accounted for by using the dosage genotype (i.e., expected number of coded allele) in a linear mixed-effect model implemented in the lmekin function of the R kinship2 package (available at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/kinship2). To ensure high-quality imputed genotypes, we used an r2 value threshold of 0.95, representing an approximate correlation with the true genotype of 0.97. Details on genotypes imputation and quality metrics are described in the Supplementary Data (Supplementary Material 3 and Supplementary Table 3).

FG Genetic Risk Score

The FG genetic risk score (GRS) was calculated on the basis of the 12 identified FG-increasing genetic variants not associated with type 2 diabetes. On the assumption of an additive genetic effect, the risk score summed risk alleles weighted by their respective effect sizes on FG (β-estimate coefficients) in the MAGIC data set (24). The score was then rescaled to range from 0 to 24 units so that a participant with two risk alleles of each variant would have a GRS of 24 units. Higher scores indicated a higher genetic predisposition to increased FG.

Statistical Analyses

To obtain an estimated effect of FG on CAD, the causal effect (α) instrumented by each FG-raising genetic variant was calculated as the ratio of β-coefficients for CAD and FG (α = βCAD/βFG), and the SE was calculated as (SE = SECAD/βFG). Regression analyses from the Genetics ToolboX package (available at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gtx) were used to obtain the overall instrumental effect-sizes of the exposure on the outcome. This approach, equivalent to performing an inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis of ratio estimates across variants, allowed us to minimize the potential for heteroscedasticity influencing our overall causal estimate because the method routinely lowers the weight of lower frequency variants as they have larger SEs (36).

Heterogeneity of the overall MR instrument was assessed using the Q statistic and reported as a heterogeneity P value. Cook’s distance was used to estimate heterogeneity of the individual FG-increasing risk variants. We also interrogated each FG-raising genetic variant for potential pleiotropic nominal associations with other CAD risk factors (P < 0.05). The overall effect-sizes on CAD risk using the polygenic MR instruments were reported as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs of OR per 1 mmol/L increase in FG levels. We took two-sided P < 0.05 to denote evidence against the null hypothesis in MR analyses.

To validate our MR instrument, we estimated the contribution of risk score variants to FG variance and FG heritability in a linear mixed-effect model with an additive genetic model, age and sex covariates, and random effects to account for familial correlation in participants without diabetes from the Offspring and Third Generation cohorts from FHS. To measure the combined effect of the 12 FG-increasing variants on FG, we computed quintiles of the 12-variant GRS. Differences in FG between GRS quintiles were analyzed in linear mixed-effects models accounting for familial correlation among participants. To assess whether type 2 diabetes prevalence differed across GRS quintiles, we used specified generalized estimating equations models, after including available data from 724 individuals with type 2 diabetes from the FHS. Differences in other clinical characteristics were assessed across quintiles using the combined cohort of participants with and without diabetes from the FHS. Participants with missing phenotype or covariates were excluded from the analysis. In all models, we accepted the GRS was associated with the dependent variable if the omnibus test for GRS quintiles was significant (P < 0.05). R 3.2.0 software (https://www.r-project.org/) and Stata 12.0 software (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX) were used for the statistical analyses.

Results

We identified 12 independent FG-raising genetic variants at genome-wide significance that were not associated with type 2 diabetes. Selection criteria requirements for each phase of the heuristic to arrive at those 12 independent FG-increasing genetic variants are shown in Supplementary Fig. 1. Details on the risk alleles, frequency, P values, sample sizes, and magnitude of the effect on FG, type 2 diabetes, and CAD are presented in Table 1.

View this table:
Table 1

Characteristics of genetic variants considered for use in Mendelian randomization analysis of the effect of FG on CAD

In an instrumental variable analysis using a polygenic instrument of 12 FG-raising variants, a 1 mmol/L increase in FG raised CAD odds by 43% (OR 1.43 [95% CI 1.14–1.79]; heterogeneity P = 0.02) (Fig. 1). One variant introduced heterogeneity in the MR instrumental analysis (AMT, rs11715915; Cook’s distance = 0.66). After excluding this variant, we showed that the association of increased FG and CAD was preserved (OR 1.34 [95% CI 1.07–1.68]; heterogeneity P = 0.88) (Supplementary Fig. 2). Next, we interrogated each of the FG-raising variants for potential pleiotropic effects on other CAD risk factors, including blood lipids, blood pressure, and obesity. The use of a conservative pleiotropy threshold (P < 0.05) resulted in five FG risk-increasing variants being treated as instrumental variables. A 1 mmol/L increase in FG derived from the MR instrument set of five FG-raising variants revealed an OR of 1.33 (95% CI 1.02–1.73) for CAD (Fig. 2). The MR instrument constructed with these five nonpleiotropic variants was not associated with higher LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic or diastolic blood pressure, and BMI or with lower HDL cholesterol (P > 0.05).

Figure 1
Figure 1

Estimate effect size of raised FG on CAD odds. Effect of FG-raising genetic variants (mmol/L) on CAD odds obtained from publicly available data from MAGIC and CARDIoGRAM Consortia. Each white dot represents a genome-wide FG-raising variant not associated with type 2 diabetes. The association of each variant with CAD (logarithmic OR transformation, ln[OR]) is denoted in the y-axis, and the association with FG is denoted by the x-axis. The red lines illustrate regression and 95% CI of FG on CAD. The effect of the polygenic instrument comprising all 12 FG-increasing variants increased the odds of CAD risk per 1 mmol/L increase in FG (OR 1.43 [95% CI 1.14–1.79]).

Figure 2
Figure 2

MR estimate of raised FG on odds of CAD is shown in subgroup analyses after pleiotropic exclusion computed using five FG-raising variants. Shown for each FG-raising genetic variant are the estimates of raised FG on CAD odds obtained from publicly available data from MAGIC and CARDIoGRAM Consortia (blue diamond). Also, shown for each FG-increasing genetic variant is the estimate of the effect and the inverse variance weight (percentage proportional to the size of the gray square) and the 95% CI of the estimate. Each FG-raising genetic variant was tested for evidence of pleiotropic associations with other CAD risk factors using the cross-phenotype meta-analysis method at the most conservative threshold that excluded variants with nominal pleiotropic associations (P < 0.05). The MR instrument comprising five FG-raising variants increased odds of CAD risk by 33% per 1 mmol/L increase in FG (OR 1.33 [95% CI 1.02–1.73]). SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism.

We also showed that the polygenic instrument of 12 FG-raising variants did not significantly increase type 2 diabetes odds (OR 1.05 [95% CI 0.91–1.23]; heterogeneity P = 0.09) (Supplementary Fig. 3). As expected, in an independent MR analysis including all 32 FG-raising variants reported to date, a 1 mmol/L increase in FG increased type 2 diabetes odds by approximately twofold (OR 1.94 [95% CI 1.77–2.12]) (Supplementary Fig. 4). The estimated effect size of increasing FG on type 2 diabetes was even stronger after our subset of 12 FG-raising variants was removed (OR 2.74 [95% CI 2.44–3.07]) (Supplementary Fig. 5). The contrasts between these two last estimated effect sizes on type 2 diabetes odds were statistically significant (P = 0.03).

In a validation study of individuals without diabetes from the FHS Offspring and Third Generation cohorts, the 12 FG-raising variants MR instrument explained a substantial proportion (5.03%) of the inherited variation in FG. The mean FG concentration was higher for those individuals in the top quintile of the GRS compared with individuals in the lower score (β = 0.11, SE = 0.02; P = 6.25 × 10−8) (Fig. 3). After available data from 724 individuals with type 2 diabetes from the FHS were included, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes did not differ across FG GRS quintiles (Q1 = 13.1% vs. Q5 = 11.9%; P = 0.72 (Fig. 3), and the difference in FG across GRS quintiles was attenuated (Supplementary Table 4). A complete description of clinical characteristics according to FG GRS quintiles is detailed in (Supplementary Table 4). We did not observe statistical differences across FG GRS quintiles for other CAD risk factors, including age, sex, metabolic syndrome, BMI, blood lipids, or blood pressure. Similarly, continuous FG GRS did not affect type 2 diabetes risk (OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94–1.02]) after adjusting for age, age squared, and sex (Supplementary Table 5).

Figure 3
Figure 3

FG concentrations and type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevalence according to individual FG genetic risk score quintiles. Variation in FG concentrations and type 2 diabetes prevalence depending on the number of risk alleles identified at the FG loci, weighted by effect size in an aggregate genotype score for the FHS Offspring examination 8 and Third Generation examination 2 participants. FG GRS quintiles are represented on the x-axis. The left y-axis displays FG concentrations (mean ± 1.96 × SE) in individuals without diabetes according to the GRS quintiles (black dots). The right y-axis shows type 2 diabetes prevalence across GRS quintiles (n = 724 participants with type 2 diabetes). The FG difference (β-coefficient) between the top and bottom quintiles was 0.11 mmol/L (SE 0.02; P = 6.25 × 10−8). Type 2 diabetes prevalence was constant across FG GRS quintiles (Q1 = 13.1% vs. Q5 = 11.9%, P = 0.72). In all models, P values were obtained by the omnibus test for GRS quintiles.

Conclusions

Whether hyperglycemia raises CAD risk separately from concomitant pathophysiological processes of type 2 diabetes is uncertain. Our MR investigation confirmed that increased FG, determined by FG-increasing genetic variants that were not associated with type 2 diabetes risk, raised CAD risk. We report an increase in CAD odds of 43% per 1 mmol/L of raised FG. The association was similar when using a genetic instrument composed of FG-associated genetic variants that did not exhibit heterogeneous effects and did not have pleiotropic effects on other CAD risk factors (33% higher CAD odds per 1 mmol/L increase in FG).

FG is one of the diagnostic criteria for type 2 diabetes. However, clinical data suggest that not all modest physiological elevations in FG will be associated with type 2 diabetes (37), and even after 15 years of exposure to increased FG concentrations, not all individuals progress to type 2 diabetes (10). Although type 2 diabetes has been long recognized as a CAD risk factor, the complex interaction of several metabolic alterations supports the difficulty in determining whether the glycemic component has an effect on CAD risk (38). Epidemiologic studies in this area are subject to confounding, and RCTs for glycemic control have been inconclusive. Genetic analyses that incorporate a GRS as a polygenic instrument in an MR framework can capture an adequate proportion of variance in an endophenotype and establish causality for that trait. The key novel point of the current study is the inclusion of nonoverlapping FG and type 2 diabetes variants. In this study, we analyzed one component of type 2 diabetes, hyperglycemia, while attempting to exclude other components associated with a complex disease process that involves mechanisms beyond hyperglycemia. Our study supports the hypothesis that glucose elevation per se is a key contributor to increased CAD.

A clinical implication of our findings is that they lend credence to the notion that lowering glucose may confer cardiovascular benefit even among individuals without diabetes. Prospective epidemiological data have consistently shown that even small changes in blood glucose can have an effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in healthy participants (39). In an extended meta-regression analysis, a linear relationship with no threshold effect was observed between FG and CAD risk (the relative cardiovascular event risk reduction was 1.33 compared with FG concentrations of 4.2 vs. 6.1 mmol/L) (40). In addition, intensive glucose-lowering therapy reduced the risk of myocardial infarction in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (16) and in patients with established type 2 diabetes by 15 to 20% (15). A meta-analysis of large RCTs found intensive glucose-lowering was associated with a significant 9% reduction in CAD events (41).

Although the current study was not designed to elucidate a potential mechanism of action, our findings concur with previous observations that plasma glucose elevations can directly aggravate structural changes in the arterial wall by a variety of mechanisms, including endothelial dysfunction, vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation, and an inflammatory phenotype change in macrophages (42). Consequently, a lifetime exposure to increased FG is likely to have detrimental effects on cardiovascular disease. A recent pharmacogenomic study suggested that the low-frequency missense variant Ala316Thr (rs10305492) in the glucagon-like-peptide 1 receptor gene (GLP1R) was associated with lower FG and conferred protection against CAD risk, highlighting the role of hyperglycemia on CAD risk and suggesting a glucose-driven mechanism (43). We note that in our MR instrument, the variant rs560887 at the G6PC2 locus, the strongest common genetic determinant of FG (44), was the main contributor of the MR effect estimate of FG on CAD. G6PC2 encodes the glucose-6-phosphatase catalytic 2 subunit, which regulates glycemia by opposing the action of glucokinase (GCK) in pancreatic β-cells, thereby modulating glycolytic flux and glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (44). Individuals with GCK mutations (responsible for maturity-onset diabetes of the young, type 2), who have mild hyperglycemia from birth, do not seem to be at increased risk of CAD compared with unaffected family members (45). However, early diagnosis of diabetes in this population may have intensified treatment of other potent CAD risk factors, such as hypercholesterolemia, thereby conferring additional cardiovascular protection in mutation carriers (45).

Our results should be interpreted with caution because other unmeasured factors (e.g., those related to inflammation or oxidative stress) could bias our estimate of elevated FG on CAD. In addition, given different sample sizes of GWAS datasets for the various traits and a uniform P value threshold of 0.05 to establish pleiotropy, the effect size detected to make this determination will differ per trait; nevertheless, we elected to choose a metric establishing a uniform likelihood of deviation from chance over a metric intending to capture similar effect sizes across phenotypes. We also recognize that nongenetic factors may have a more dominant role in FG and CAD risk. MR studies make several assumptions, including confounding by pleiotropy and linkage disequilibrium, population structure, or weak genetic instruments (46). Confounding by pleiotropy and linkage disequilibrium was properly addressed, but we cannot affirm that our results apply to other ethnic groups because we conducted our analyses mainly in populations of European descent.

Our validation analysis showed that our genetic instrument explains a small proportion of FG variance, although the magnitude of variance explained is aligned with previous observations (23,24) and is sufficient to capture the effects of genetically explained FG, especially for individuals without diabetes. Nevertheless, we cannot rule out that a genetic instrument constructed with a different set of undiscovered variants, derived from deeper genotyping platforms or other populations, might yield disparate results. Our MR variable analysis also assumed a linear relationship between FG and CAD. We note that FG may have a nonlinear relationship with CAD, but this is typically seen for individuals with low glucose levels, which represent a minority of the general population (2). Finally, we cannot rule out the possibility that FG-raising variants may have an independent effect on FG and CAD or an effect on CAD that varies with the extent of glycemic exposure.

In conclusion, our findings quantify the causal relationship between increased FG and CAD risk beyond the genetic effect of type 2 diabetes and other major CAD risk factors. We demonstrated that a 1 mmol/L increase in FG increased the odds of CAD by 33%. Our results provide additional evidence for the design and interpretation of clinical trials of interventions specifically designed to lower glycemia on CAD outcomes.

Article Information

Acknowledgments. The authors thank publicly available genomic consortia (MAGIC, DIAGRAM, CARDIoGRAMplusC4D, and CARDIoGRAMv3) for access to their data.

Funding. This work was partially supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's FHS (Contract No. N01-HC-25195). J.M. is supported by an individual fellowship funded by the Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions of the European Commission (H2020-MSCA-IF-2015-703787). A.L. is supported by a Canadian Diabetes Association postdoctoral research fellowship. J.D. is partially supported by National Institutes of Health grant R01-DK-078616. J.C.F. is supported by an MGH (Massachusetts General Hospital) Research Scholars Award.

Duality of Interest. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. J.M., A.L., D.C.P., B.P., L.M., J.D., and J.C.F. participated in the interpretation of data, the drafting of the manuscript and its revisions, and final approval of the manuscript. J.M., D.C.P., and B.P. acquired and analyzed the data. J.M., J.D., and J.C.F. participated in the design and conception of the study. J.M., J.D., and J.C.F. are the guarantors of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Prior Presentation. Parts of this study were presented in abstract form at the 52nd European Association for the Study of Diabetes Annual Meeting, Munich, Germany, 12–16 September 2016, and at the Endocrine Society's 98th Annual Meeting and Expo, Boston, MA, 1–4 April 2016.

Footnotes

  • Received December 8, 2016.
  • Accepted February 13, 2017.
http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 7th edition [Internet], 2015. Brussels, Belgium, International Diabetes Federation. Available from http://www.idf.org/idf-diabetes-atlas-seventh-edition. Accessed 29 June 2016
  2. ↵
    1. Sarwar N,
    2. Gao P,
    3. Seshasai SR, et al.; Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration
    . Diabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose concentration, and risk of vascular disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of 102 prospective studies. Lancet 2010;375:2215–2222pmid:20609967
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Mazzone T,
    2. Chait A,
    3. Plutzky J
    . Cardiovascular disease risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus: insights from mechanistic studies. Lancet 2008;371:1800–1809pmid:18502305
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. DeFronzo RA,
    2. Abdul-Ghani M
    . Assessment and treatment of cardiovascular risk in prediabetes: impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose. Am J Cardiol 2011;108(3 Suppl.):3B–24Bpmid:21802577
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. DECODE Study Group, the European Diabetes Epidemiology Group.
    Glucose tolerance and cardiovascular mortality: comparison of fasting and 2-hour diagnostic criteria. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:397–405pmid:11176766
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Chiasson JL,
    2. Josse RG,
    3. Gomis R,
    4. Hanefeld M,
    5. Karasik A,
    6. Laakso M; STOP-NIDDM Trial Research Group
    . Acarbose treatment and the risk of cardiovascular disease and hypertension in patients with impaired glucose tolerance: the STOP-NIDDM trial. JAMA 2003;290:486–494pmid:12876091
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Bosch J,
    2. Yusuf S,
    3. Gerstein HC, et al.; DREAM Trial Investigators
    . Effect of ramipril on the incidence of diabetes. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1551–1562pmid:16980380
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Holman RR,
    2. Haffner SM,
    3. McMurray JJ, et al.; NAVIGATOR Study Group
    . Effect of nateglinide on the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1463–1476pmid:20228402
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. ORIGIN Trial Investigators,
    2. Gerstein HC,
    3. Bosch J,
    4. Dagenais GR, et al
    . Basal insulin and cardiovascular and other outcomes in dysglycemia. N Engl J Med 2012;367:319–328pmid:22686416
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . Long-term effects of lifestyle intervention or metformin on diabetes development and microvascular complications over 15-year follow-up: the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015;3:866–875pmid:26377054
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group
    . Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352:837–853pmid:9742976
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Patel A,
    2. MacMahon S,
    3. Chalmers J, et al.; ADVANCE Collaborative Group
    . Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2560–2572pmid:18539916
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group; Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, et al. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2545–2559.
  14. ↵
    1. Duckworth W,
    2. Abraira C,
    3. Moritz T, et al.; VADT Investigators
    . Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2009;360:129–139pmid:19092145
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Gerstein HC,
    2. Miller ME,
    3. Ismail-Beigi F, et al.; ACCORD Study Group
    . Effects of intensive glycaemic control on ischaemic heart disease: analysis of data from the randomised, controlled ACCORD trial. Lancet 2014;384:1936–1941pmid:25088437
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Holman RR,
    2. Paul SK,
    3. Bethel MA,
    4. Matthews DR,
    5. Neil HA
    . 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1577–1589pmid:18784090
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Hayward RA,
    2. Reaven PD,
    3. Wiitala WL, et al.; VADT Investigators
    . Follow-up of glycemic control and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2197–2206pmid:26039600
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Zinman B,
    2. Wanner C,
    3. Lachin JM, et al.; EMPA-REG OUTCOME Investigators
    . Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2117–2128pmid:26378978
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Marso SP,
    2. Daniels GH,
    3. Brown-Frandsen K, et al.; LEADER Steering Committee; LEADER Trial Investigators
    . Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2016;375:311–322pmid:27295427
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Timpson NJ,
    2. Wade KH,
    3. Smith GD
    . Mendelian randomization: application to cardiovascular disease. Curr Hypertens Rep 2012;14:29–37pmid:22161218
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Ahmad OS, Morris JA, Mujammami M, et al. A Mendelian randomization study of the effect of type-2 diabetes on coronary heart disease. Nat Commun 2015;6:7060.
  22. ↵
    1. Ross S,
    2. Gerstein HC,
    3. Eikelboom J,
    4. Anand SS,
    5. Yusuf S,
    6. Paré G
    . Mendelian randomization analysis supports the causal role of dysglycaemia and diabetes in the risk of coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 2015;36:1454–1462pmid:25825043
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Dupuis J,
    2. Langenberg C,
    3. Prokopenko I, et al.; DIAGRAM Consortium; GIANT Consortium; Global BPgen Consortium; Anders Hamsten on behalf of Procardis Consortium; MAGIC investigators
    . New genetic loci implicated in fasting glucose homeostasis and their impact on type 2 diabetes risk. Nat Genet 2010;42:105–116pmid:20081858
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    1. Scott RA,
    2. Lagou V,
    3. Welch RP, et al.; DIAbetes Genetics Replication and Meta-analysis (DIAGRAM) Consortium
    . Large-scale association analyses identify new loci influencing glycemic traits and provide insight into the underlying biological pathways. Nat Genet 2012;44:991–1005pmid:22885924
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Morris AP,
    2. Voight BF,
    3. Teslovich TM, et al.; Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium; Meta-Analyses of Glucose and Insulin-related traits Consortium (MAGIC) Investigators; Genetic Investigation of ANthropometric Traits (GIANT) Consortium; Asian Genetic Epidemiology Network–Type 2 Diabetes (AGEN-T2D) Consortium; South Asian Type 2 Diabetes (SAT2D) Consortium; DIAbetes Genetics Replication And Meta-analysis (DIAGRAM) Consortium
    . Large-scale association analysis provides insights into the genetic architecture and pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet 2012;44:981–990pmid:22885922
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Deloukas P,
    2. Kanoni S,
    3. Willenborg C, et al.; CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium; DIAGRAM Consortium; CARDIOGENICS Consortium; MuTHER Consortium; Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium
    . Large-scale association analysis identifies new risk loci for coronary artery disease. Nat Genet 2013;45:25–33pmid:23202125
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Schunkert H,
    2. König IR,
    3. Kathiresan S, et al.; Cardiogenics; CARDIoGRAM Consortium
    . Large-scale association analysis identifies 13 new susceptibility loci for coronary artery disease. Nat Genet 2011;43:333–338pmid:21378990
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Cotsapas C,
    2. Voight BF,
    3. Rossin E, et al.; FOCiS Network of Consortia
    . Pervasive sharing of genetic effects in autoimmune disease. PLoS Genet 2011;7:e1002254pmid:21852963
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Cole SR,
    2. Platt RW,
    3. Schisterman EF, et al
    . Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. Int J Epidemiol 2010;39:417–420pmid:19926667
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Willer CJ,
    2. Schmidt EM,
    3. Sengupta S, et al.; Global Lipids Genetics Consortium
    . Discovery and refinement of loci associated with lipid levels. Nat Genet 2013;45:1274–1283pmid:24097068
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Ehret GB,
    2. Munroe PB,
    3. Rice KM, et al.; International Consortium for Blood Pressure Genome-Wide Association Studies; CARDIoGRAM consortium; CKDGen Consortium; KidneyGen Consortium; EchoGen consortium; CHARGE-HF consortium
    . Genetic variants in novel pathways influence blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk. Nature 2011;478:103–109pmid:21909115
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    1. Locke AE,
    2. Kahali B,
    3. Berndt SI, et al.; LifeLines Cohort Study; ADIPOGen Consortium; AGEN-BMI Working Group; CARDIOGRAMplusC4D Consortium; CKDGen Consortium; GLGC; ICBP; MAGIC Investigators; MuTHER Consortium; MIGen Consortium; PAGE Consortium; ReproGen Consortium; GENIE Consortium; International Endogene Consortium
    . Genetic studies of body mass index yield new insights for obesity biology. Nature 2015;518:197–206pmid:25673413
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Brion MJ,
    2. Shakhbazov K,
    3. Visscher PM
    . Calculating statistical power in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol 2013;42:1497–1501pmid:24159078
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Kannel WB,
    2. Feinleib M,
    3. McNamara PM,
    4. Garrison RJ,
    5. Castelli WP
    . An investigation of coronary heart disease in families. The Framingham Offspring Study. Am J Epidemiol 1979;110:281–290pmid:474565
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Splansky GL,
    2. Corey D,
    3. Yang Q, et al
    . The Third Generation Cohort of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Framingham Heart Study: design, recruitment, and initial examination. Am J Epidemiol 2007;165:1328–1335pmid:17372189
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Burgess S,
    2. Butterworth A,
    3. Thompson SG
    . Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol 2013;37:658–665pmid:24114802
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Monnier L,
    2. Lapinski H,
    3. Colette C
    . Contributions of fasting and postprandial plasma glucose increments to the overall diurnal hyperglycemia of type 2 diabetic patients: variations with increasing levels of HbA(1c). Diabetes Care 2003;26:881–885pmid:12610053
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Mannucci E,
    2. Dicembrini I,
    3. Lauria A,
    4. Pozzilli P
    . Is glucose control important for prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes? Diabetes Care 2013;36(Suppl. 2):S259–S263pmid:23882055
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Panzer C,
    2. Lauer MS,
    3. Brieke A,
    4. Blackstone E,
    5. Hoogwerf B
    . Association of fasting plasma glucose with heart rate recovery in healthy adults: a population-based study. Diabetes 2002;51:803–807pmid:11872683
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Coutinho M,
    2. Gerstein HC,
    3. Wang Y,
    4. Yusuf S
    . The relationship between glucose and incident cardiovascular events. A metaregression analysis of published data from 20 studies of 95,783 individuals followed for 12.4 years. Diabetes Care 1999;22:233–240pmid:10333939
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Control Group,
    2. Turnbull FM,
    3. Abraira C, et al.
    Intensive glucose control and macrovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2009;52:2288–2298pmid:19655124
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Bornfeldt KE,
    2. Tabas I
    . Insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, and atherosclerosis. Cell Metab 2011;14:575–585pmid:22055501
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. ↵
    1. Scott RA,
    2. Freitag DF,
    3. Li L, et al.; CVD50 consortium; GERAD_EC Consortium; Neurology Working Group of the Cohorts for Heart; Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE); Alzheimer’s Disease Genetics Consortium; Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium; European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition–Cardiovascular Disease (EPIC-CVD); EPIC-InterAct; CHARGE consortium; CHD Exome+ Consortium; CARDIOGRAM Exome Consortium
    . A genomic approach to therapeutic target validation identifies a glucose-lowering GLP1R variant protective for coronary heart disease. Sci Transl Med 2016;8:341ra76pmid:27252175
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Bouatia-Naji N,
    2. Rocheleau G,
    3. Van Lommel L, et al
    . A polymorphism within the G6PC2 gene is associated with fasting plasma glucose levels. Science 2008;320:1085–1088pmid:18451265
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Steele AM,
    2. Shields BM,
    3. Wensley KJ,
    4. Colclough K,
    5. Ellard S,
    6. Hattersley AT
    . Prevalence of vascular complications among patients with glucokinase mutations and prolonged, mild hyperglycemia. JAMA 2014;311:279–286pmid:24430320
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. ↵
    1. Lawlor DA,
    2. Harbord RM,
    3. Sterne JAC,
    4. Timpson N,
    5. Davey Smith G
    . Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med 2008;27:1133–1163pmid:17886233
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Add to Selected Citations

Genetically Driven Hyperglycemia Increases Risk of Coronary Artery Disease Separately From Type 2 Diabetes
Jordi Merino, Aaron Leong, Daniel C. Posner, Bianca Porneala, Lluís Masana, Josée Dupuis, Jose C. Florez
Diabetes Care May 2017, 40 (5) 687-693; DOI: 10.2337/dc16-2625
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section