Pathophysiology/Complications

ACE and Type 2 Diabetes Risk: A Mendelian Randomization Study

  1. Marie Pigeyre1,2,3,
  2. Jennifer Sjaarda1,2,4,
  3. Michael Chong1,2,4,
  4. Sibylle Hess5,
  5. Jackie Bosch1,6,
  6. Salim Yusuf1,7,
  7. Hertzel Gerstein1,3 and
  8. Guillaume Paré1,2,4,7⇑
  1. 1Population Health Research Institute, David Braley Cardiac, Vascular and Stroke Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2Thrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research Institute, David Braley Cardiac, Vascular and Stroke Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Department of Medicine, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  4. 4Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  5. 5R&D, Translational Medicine & Early Development, Biomarkers & Clinical Bioanalyses, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany
  6. 6School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  7. 7Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  1. Corresponding author: Guillaume Paré, pareg{at}mcmaster.ca
Diabetes Care 2020 Apr; 43(4): 835-842. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-1973

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine whether ACE inhibitors reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes using a Mendelian randomization (MR) approach.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A two-sample MR analysis included 17 independent genetic variants associated with ACE serum concentration in 4,147 participants from the Outcome Reduction with Initial Glargine INtervention (ORIGIN) (clinical trial reg. no. NCT00069784) trial, and their effects on type 2 diabetes risk were estimated from 18 studies of the DIAbetes Genetics Replication And Meta-analysis (DIAGRAM) consortium. A genetic risk score (GRS) underpinning lower ACE concentration was then tested for association with type 2 diabetes prevalence in 341,872 participants, including 16,320 with type 2 diabetes, from the UK Biobank. MR estimates were compared after standardization for blood pressure change, with the estimate obtained from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) meta-analysis of ACE inhibitors versus placebo (n = 31,200).

RESULTS Genetically lower ACE concentrations were associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes (odds ratio [OR] per SD 0.92 [95% CI 0.89–0.95]; P = 1.79 × 10−7). This result was replicated in the UK Biobank (OR per SD 0.97 [0.96–0.99]; P = 8.73 × 10−4). After standardization, the ACE GRS was associated with a larger decrease in type 2 diabetes risk per 2.4-mmHg lower mean arterial pressure (MAP) compared with that obtained from an RCT meta-analysis (OR per 2.4-mmHg lower MAP 0.19 [0.07–0.51] vs. 0.76 [0.60–0.97], respectively; P = 0.007 for difference).

CONCLUSIONS These results support the causal protective effect of ACE inhibitors on type 2 diabetes risk and may guide therapeutic decision making in clinical practice.

Introduction

Diabetes is a leading cause of death worldwide (1) and an important risk factor for cardiovascular and kidney diseases (2). The global prevalence of diabetes has doubled over the past 25 years (3), and, thus, policies to slow its incidence are urgently required. Exercise, dieting, and some glucose-lowering drugs can prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes (4). Moreover, three (5–7) of five (5–9) large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have suggested that ACE inhibitors may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes compared with placebo in people at high risk for cardiovascular outcomes. However, one large RCT in people at low risk for cardiovascular diseases, who also had impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or impaired fasting glucose (IFG), reported a nonsignificantly lower effect of ACE inhibitors on incident type 2 diabetes (10). Thus, the causal relationship between ACE inhibition and protection from type 2 diabetes remains questionable.

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a statistical method that uses genetic associations with both the putative causal factor (i.e., exposure) and the outcome to infer causality while reducing bias resulting from confounding (because genetic variants are randomly allocated at conception) or reverse causation (because allele assignment precedes disease onset) (11). Conceptually similar to an RCT, the MR approach also enables inferences of the pharmacological effect of a drug using randomly allocated variants in the drug target gene (12).

In this study, we applied MR analyses to test the hypothesis that ACE inhibitors protect against the risk of type 2 diabetes. We identified genetic variants within or near the ACE locus influencing circulating ACE concentrations. Using those variants as instruments for ACE inhibition, we estimated the effect of genetically determined lower ACE concentration on the risk of type 2 diabetes. Providing evidence for the protective effect of ACE inhibitors on type 2 diabetes is of interest because it could guide therapeutic decision making in patients requiring antihypertensive drugs.

Research Design and Methods

The study consisted of three sequential steps (Fig. 1). First, we identified genetic variants within or near the ACE locus associated with ACE concentration in the Outcome Reduction with Initial Glargine INtervention (ORIGIN) (reg. no. NCT00069784, ClinicalTrials.gov) trial to be used as instrumental variables in subsequent MR analyses. Second, we conducted a two-sample MR analysis to assess the relationship between genetically lowered ACE concentration and risk of type 2 diabetes, using summary association statistics from the DIAbetes Genetics Replication And Meta-analysis (DIAGRAM) consortium. Genetic associations were replicated by testing an ACE concentration–lowering genetic risk score (ACE GRS) for association with type 2 diabetes prevalence in the UK Biobank cohort (i.e., one-sample MR). Third, estimates of type 2 diabetes obtained from MR were compared with the estimates obtained from an RCT meta-analysis of ACE inhibitors versus placebo, after standardization for blood pressure change.

Figure 1
Figure 1

Study overview. MR analysis included independent genetic variants associated with ACE serum concentration in the ORIGIN trial. A two-sample MR analysis applied to the DIAGRAM consortium was used to test for causal association between ACE concentration and type 2 diabetes risk. External validation was performed using a GRS underpinning lower ACE concentration in the UK Biobank. MR estimate was then compared after standardization for blood pressure change, with the estimate obtained from an RCT meta-analysis of ACE inhibitors vs. placebo. EUROPA, EUROpean trial on reduction of cardiac events with Perindopril in stable coronary Artery; HOPE, Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation; IMAGINE, Ischemia Management with Accupril post-bypass Graft via INhibition of the converting Enzyme; PEACE, Prevention of Events with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme inhibition; SOLVD, Study Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

Study Participants

MR analyses included individual participant data from the ORIGIN trial and the UK Biobank and summary-level data from up to 26,676 participants with type 2 diabetes and 132,532 control participants from 18 studies as part of the DIAGRAM consortium (13) (Supplementary Table 1). In the ORIGIN trial, a total of 12,537 participants with type 2 diabetes, IGT, or IFG and additional cardiovascular risk factors were randomly allocated to two therapies using a factorial design (insulin glargine vs. standard care, and omega-3 fatty acid supplement vs. placebo) and followed for a median of 6.2 years to monitor cardiovascular events and other health outcomes (14). At baseline, 8,494 participants provided blood samples for proteomic analyses, among whom 5,078 consented to genomic analyses. Following genotyping quality control procedures (Supplementary Material 1), a total of 1,931 participants of European Caucasian ethnicity and 2,216 participants of native Latin ethnicity were included in the genetic analyses.

The UK Biobank is a prospective cohort of >500,000 individuals (aged 40–69 years) recruited across the U.K. and for whom extensive phenotypic and genotypic data were collected (15). From the full data set release issued in July 2017, a total of 343,735 unrelated individuals of British origin had genotyping data suitable for analysis (Supplementary Material 1). Among those individuals, 1,863 had missing phenotypic data, leaving 341,872 participants for our analyses, including 16,320 prevalent cases of type 2 diabetes. Data analyses were conducted under UK Biobank application number 1525.

Study Outcomes

The primary outcome for the individual participant data analyses was type 2 diabetes prevalence at baseline, as defined by the UK Biobank (15). The primary outcome for analyses using summary-level data was type 2 diabetes, as defined by the DIAGRAM consortium (13).

Exposure Assessment

ACE serum concentration was assayed within a multiplex biomarker panel (Supplementary Table 2). After completion of the ORIGIN trial, 1 mL of serum from each participant was transported to Myriad RBM, Inc. (Austin, TX) to quantify 284 biomarkers (Luminex) related to metabolic and cardiovascular diseases. A total of 238 biomarkers, including ACE, from 8,401 participants were deemed suitable for analysis (16). ACE concentrations were normally distributed. Values were standardized to a mean of 0 and an SD of 1.

Genetic Instruments

We selected genetic variants within 300 kilobases of the ACE locus (namely, cis-single nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs]) and next removed SNPs not found in the DIAGRAM database or with minor allele frequencies < 0.05, resulting in 870 cis-SNPs that were then tested for their association with ACE concentration in the ORIGIN trial (17). Linear regression analyses for each SNP with ACE concentration were performed separately in each ethnic group, adjusting for ACE inhibitor usage at baseline and for age, sex, and the first five principal components, and then meta-analyzed across the two ethnicities using fixed effects models. A total of 448 cis-SNPs were associated with ACE concentration (P < 0.01), which were then pruned for linkage disequilibrium at a stringent threshold of r2 < 0.1.

RCT Meta-analysis of ACE Inhibitors Versus Placebo

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (18), we performed a meta-analysis of the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes reported in RCTs examining the effects of ACE inhibitors versus placebo. A structured search was conducted in the PubMed database on 9 May 2019, using the following Medical Subject Heading terms: antihypertensive agents, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, diabetes mellitus, randomized controlled trial, and meta-analysis. Only studies with a double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial design in adults, assessing the effect of ACE inhibitors in comparison with a placebo and reporting the incidence of new-onset diabetes, were included (Supplementary Material 1). The intervention effect on the incidence of type 2 diabetes was expressed as an odds ratio (OR) with the 95% CI and P value. We used an inverse variance–weighted random effects model because of the wide clinical and methodological variability across trials (R metafor package).

Statistical Analyses

Two-Sample MR Analysis

Two-sample MR analysis of effect of ACE concentration change on type 2 diabetes risk used 1) the effect of the ACE concentration–lowering SNPs (calculated in the ORIGIN trial) and 2) the effect of those SNPs on type 2 diabetes risk from the DIAGRAM consortium (13). MR associations were performed using the inverse variance–weighted method by regressing the genetic effect estimates for type 2 diabetes on the genetic effect estimates for ACE concentration adjusted for ACE inhibitor usage at baseline. To determine statistical significance, a bootstrap method was used under the null hypothesis that the ratio of the genetic effect estimate for type 2 diabetes on the genetic effect estimate for the biomarker was equal to zero for all SNPs. The predicted effects on type 2 diabetes were sampled from a normal distribution, with the mean and SD determined from DIAGRAM. A two-tailed P value was calculated using a Z test from 100,000 random simulations.

One-Sample MR Analysis

A weighted GRS underpinning lower ACE serum concentration (ACE GRS) was calculated for each participant of the UK Biobank by summing the number of ACE concentration–lowering alleles inherited at each independent variant, weighted by each SNP–ACE concentration association coefficient measured in SD per effect allele. The score was then normalized such that a 1-unit increase in the GRS corresponded to a 1-SD reduction in genetically determined ACE concentration. Logistic regression was performed to estimate the association between type 2 diabetes prevalence and ACE GRS in the UK Biobank. This model was adjusted for age, sex, ACE inhibitor usage, and the first 10 principal components. To verify whether the effect of ACE inhibition on type 2 diabetes could be mediated through an effect on BMI, three additional logistic regression models of type 2 diabetes risk on ACE GRS were performed. These consisted of two models also adjusted for 1) measured BMI or 2) BMI polygenic risk score (PRS) (calculated on the basis of a method we previously described [19] and using the summary statistics from the Genetic Investigation of ANthropometric Traits [GIANT] consortium [20]); a third model using an ACE GRS excluded the SNP rs72845888, which has previously been reported to be significantly associated with BMI (at P = 4.8 × 10−11) (20).

MR-Egger Regression

We performed MR-Egger regression to test whether genetic variants included in MR analyses did not exert directional pleiotropy (i.e., where the genetic association with the outcome is through a different causal pathway and not through the exposure of interest) (21). This analysis tested the null hypothesis (i.e., absence of pleiotropy) that the y-intercept of the regression line was equal to zero after fitting the relationships between genetic associations with ACE concentration (independent variable) and type 2 diabetes (dependent variable).

Comparison Between Estimates of Type 2 Diabetes Obtained From MR and That Obtained From RCT Meta-Analysis

Finally, comparison between estimates of type 2 diabetes risk obtained from MR analysis and that obtained from RCT meta-analysis was performed using a Z test after standardization on blood pressure change (Supplementary Material 3).

Pathway Analyses Between ACE Inhibition and Type 2 Diabetes Risk

Assuming that biological mechanisms underlying the protective effect of ACE inhibition on type 2 diabetes may involve body adiposity, insulin sensitivity, and insulin secretion, we investigated ACE concentration for causal associations with BMI and 15 glucose- and insulin-related traits, including fasting glucose, 2-h postprandial glucose, HbA1c, and several indices of insulin resistance or β-cell function (22). We performed two-sample MR analyses of ACE concentration change (using the genetic associations estimated in the ORIGIN trial) on BMI (using the GIANT consortium summary-level data) (20) and each of the 15 glucose- and insulin-related traits (using the Meta-Analyses of Glucose and Insulin-related traits Consortium [MAGIC] summary-level data) (23–26). We applied a Bonferroni correction, such that only two-tailed P < 0.05/16 was considered statistically significant.

All statistical analyses were conducted using R version 3.3.2 software. Two-tailed P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, with adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing applied as appropriate.

Results

Lower ACE Serum Concentrations Causally Associated With Lower Risk of Type 2 Diabetes

We identified 17 independent cis-SNPs significantly associated with ACE concentration in 4,197 participants from the genetic substudy of ORIGIN (Supplementary Table 3 for baseline characteristics). Altogether, these SNPs were able to explain 39% of the variance in ACE serum concentrations (F-statistic value 156), thus supporting its appropriateness to be used as an instrument in subsequent MR analyses (when F > 10) (Supplementary Table 4 and Supplementary Fig. 1).

Through the two-sample MR analysis applied to DIAGRAM, we found that lower ACE concentration was associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes (OR per SD 0.92 [95% CI 0.89–0.95]) (Fig. 2A). No pleiotropy was detected to explain the causal relationships between genetically determined ACE concentration change and the risk of type 2 diabetes using MR-Egger regression model (intercept P = 0.221) (Fig. 3).

Figure 2
Figure 2

Results of MR analyses of ACE inhibition on type 2 diabetes risk and comparison with an RCT meta-analysis. A and B: For the two-sample MR, the OR was determined by regressing the effect estimates from the type 2 diabetes association (from the DIAGRAM consortium) on the ACE association (from ORIGIN) using the inverse variance–weighting method. The effects of each ACE-lowering SNP on type 2 diabetes risk are presented in Supplementary Fig. 1. For the one-sample MR (ACE GRS), analyses were performed in all individuals of British Caucasian origin in the UK Biobank, and models were adjusted for age, sex, whether participants reported receiving an ACE inhibitor medication at baseline, and the first 10 principal components. Squares represent the OR of prevalent type 2 diabetes (A) and the change in SD units of each clinical variable (B) per 1-SD lower genetically determined ACE serum concentration. Error bars represent 95% CIs. C: The OR of type 2 diabetes risk on genetically determined ACE concentration was standardized such that 1 unit corresponded to a genetically determined ACE concentration change equivalent to a 2.4-mmHg lower MAP. The OR of type 2 diabetes risk on ACE inhibitors was calculated using an inverse variance–weighted random effects meta-analysis of six ACE inhibitor vs. placebo RCTs. The two ORs were then compared using a Z test (P for comparison). Squares represent the OR of prevalent type 2 diabetes per 2.4-mmHg lower MAP. Error bars represent 95% CIs.

Figure 3
Figure 3

MR-Egger regression of ACE concentration–lowering variants with type 2 diabetes risk. Genetic associations with ACE levels were determined in the ORIGIN trial and are given in 1-SD lower ACE level per effect allele. Genetic associations with type 2 diabetes were extracted from the DIAGRAM consortium and are given in log-OR per effect allele (graph generated with the R MendelianRandomization package).

These genetic findings were replicated in the UK Biobank using one-sample MR. Hereby, we estimated that a 1-SD lower ACE GRS resulted in a 3% lower risk of type 2 diabetes (OR per SD 0.97 [95% CI 0.96–0.99]), with a direction and magnitude of effect consistent with those estimated in the two-sample MR analysis (Fig. 2A and Supplementary Fig. 2). No effect of interaction between ACE inhibitor usage and ACE GRS was found on type 2 diabetes risk (P for interaction = 0.99). Moreover, a 1-SD lower ACE GRS predicted a 0.01 mmol/L lower mean fasting plasma glucose (P = 5.11 × 10−3) and a 0.02 mmol/mol lower mean HbA1c (P = 2.20 × 10−2) (Fig. 2B).

As sensitivity analyses, we verified whether adjustment for measured BMI or BMI PRS would affect the association of ACE GRS with type 2 diabetes prevalence. We found that this association was modestly attenuated with adjustment for measured BMI (OR per 1-SD lower ACE GRS 0.97 [95% CI 0.95–0.99]; P = 1.89 × 10−4) or BMI PRS (0.98 [0.96–0.99]; P = 2.30 × 10−3). Similarly, when performing a leave-one-out analysis by excluding the SNP rs72845888 from the ACE GRS calculation, the association of ACE GRS with type 2 diabetes prevalence was attenuated but still significant (0.98 [0.97–0.99]; P = 3.60 × 10−2).

MR Estimates for Type 2 Diabetes Larger Than That Obtained From RCT Meta-analysis

To investigate whether the effect of ACE inhibition on type 2 diabetes risk might be cumulative over time, we compared the MR estimates of type 2 diabetes with that obtained from an RCT meta-analysis. Six RCTs of ACE inhibitors versus placebo were included in the meta-analysis, totaling 31,200 participants (Table 1). A total of 1,312 new-onset diabetes cases were reported in the intervention group (n = 15,593) and 1,506 cases in the control group (n = 15,607) with a MAP-lowering effect of ACE inhibitors versus placebo of 2.4 mmHg over a period of 2.9–4.8 years of treatment. This meta-analysis estimated that ACE inhibitor allocation decreased type 2 diabetes incidence by 24% (OR 0.76 [95% CI 0.60–0.97]) (Supplementary Fig. 3). Compared with this, the ACE GRS was associated with a larger decrease in type 2 diabetes risk of 81% per 2.4-mmHg lower MAP (0.19 [0.07–0.51]; P = 0.007 for difference) (Fig. 2C). This result was expected because MR analysis (which appraises the effects of a lifelong exposure on an outcome) may generate a larger effect estimate compared with that obtained from RCTs examining the effects of ACE inhibitors over a limited duration of time.

View this table:
Table 1

Characteristics of studies contributing to the ACE inhibitors versus placebo meta-analysis and OR of new-onset type 2 diabetes

Effect of ACE Inhibition on Type 2 Diabetes Risk Through BMI Modulation

To further clarify the association of ACE inhibition and type 2 diabetes, we explored potential biological mechanisms linking ACE and type 2 diabetes using a two-sample MR approach. We identified a causal association between lower ACE concentration and lower BMI, whereby a genetically lower ACE concentration predicted a lower BMI (β = −0.02 kg/m2 [95% CI −0.03 to −0.007]; P = 7.42 × 10−4). No significant causal associations between genetically determined ACE concentration and 15 glycemic- and insulin-related traits were detected (Pall ≥ 0.05/16) (Supplementary Table 6).

Conclusions

We demonstrated that genetically lower ACE concentration was associated with lower type 2 diabetes prevalence using two independent analyses, even after adjusting for BMI, and that genetic estimate was larger compared with the effect estimate measured in RCTs of ACE inhibitors versus placebo, when standardizing for blood pressure change. These genetic findings thus reinforce the causal protective effect of ACE inhibitors on type 2 diabetes and suggest a cumulative effect over time.

Here, we have provided the first MR study demonstrating that a genetically lower ACE concentration predicts a lower risk of type 2 diabetes. These findings are consistent with previous results from genetic association studies of ACE variants with type 2 diabetes risk (27,28). The most studied ACE variant (namely, ACE I/D) corresponds to either the presence (insertion [I]) or absence (deletion [D]) of a 287–base pair Alu repeat in intron 16 of the ACE gene. This variant has been reported to account for up to one-half of the variability in serum enzyme levels, with individuals homozygous for allele I having significantly lower levels than carriers of allele D (29). There are multiple SNPs tagging this single I/D SNP, including rs4343. Meta-analyses of the ACE I/D variant showed an association with type 2 diabetes, such that allele I was associated with a 14% lower risk of type 2 diabetes compared with allele D (30). Consistent with this analysis, rs4343-A, which corresponds to allele I, explained 20% of the variance in ACE concentration estimated in the ORIGIN trial, with the strongest negative association with ACE concentration. The allele I was also reported to be nominally associated (P = 8.60 × 10−7) with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, with an OR of 0.97 in the Diabetes Meta-Analysis of Trans-Ethnic consortium (31).

Evidence of causality between ACE inhibitors and protection against type 2 diabetes raises the clinical question of whether ACE inhibitors should be recommended as a first-choice therapy in patients with hypertension at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. In the Diabetes REduction Assessment with ramipril and rosiglitazone Medication (DREAM) trial, the only dedicated trial studying the effect of ACE inhibitor allocation versus placebo on incident type 2 diabetes to date, ramipril did not significantly reduce the incidence of diabetes in participants having prior IFG or IGT (hazard ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.79–1.05]) (10). However, plasma glucose levels measured 2 h after an oral glucose load were significantly lower in the ramipril group (10). This suggests that the benefits of ACE inhibitors on type 2 diabetes prevention might be reduced in patients with prior dysglycemia, and the DREAM trial might have been underpowered (with a sample size of 5,269) or of insufficient duration (with a median of 3 years) to detect a reduction in diabetes incidence <20%.

While MR is increasingly used to infer drug effects and reposition drug indications (12), our study suggests a protective effect of ACE inhibitors on type 2 diabetes through a reduction of BMI, which is consistent with experimental models. For example, treatment of mice on a high-fat diet with ACE inhibitors reduced body weight and, consequently, improved insulin sensitivity. This study demonstrated that angiotensin II—the product of ACE—inhibits adipogenic differentiation of human adipocytes, suggesting that ACE inhibitors may prevent type 2 diabetes by promoting the recruitment and differentiation of adipocytes (32). Other mechanisms have also been reported to explain the link between ACE inhibition and glucose homeostasis. Experimental models showed that vasodilation induced by ACE inhibitors could improve blood circulation not only in skeletal muscles, favoring glucose disposal in peripheral tissues (e.g., skeletal muscles, adipose tissue) and promoting insulin action (33,34), but also in the pancreas, promoting insulin secretion (35). Preserving cellular potassium and magnesium pools by blocking ACE could also improve cellular insulin action and secretion (36).

The strengths of our study include the use of MR to estimate a causal relationship between ACE inhibition and type 2 diabetes risk through two independent analyses. Our analyses also revealed a narrower interval estimate through MR compared with RCT meta-analysis. While RCTs provide the highest level of evidence for or against a health intervention, heterogeneity in the diagnosis criteria for type 2 diabetes or in the intervention duration across the studies represents an important limitation to meta-analyses. In contrast, the use of MR has the ability to reflect constant lifelong exposures to a causal factor and can also overcome some RCT pitfalls, such as insufficient duration of follow-up to demonstrate an effect. However, the generalizability and interpretation of our findings are limited by several factors. First, our MR analysis was restricted to individuals of European and Latin American ancestries, and the association of ACE concentration with type 2 diabetes risk may differ in other ethnicities. Second, no significant causal relationships were found between ACE inhibition and either insulin secretion or insulin resistance indexes, although the power of MR was moderate for these traits and not all biological pathways could be explored using MR because of the lack of genetic data or weak genetic instruments. Finally, we could not investigate through our RCT meta-analysis whether receiving ACE inhibitors versus placebo decreases BMI over the follow-up period because BMI change has not been reported as a secondary end point in RCT-related publications (5–9).

Our study represents the first MR analysis of ACE concentration on type 2 diabetes risk and identified ACE as a novel causal factor for type 2 diabetes. Those genetic findings were consistent with meta-analyses of ACE inhibitor RCTs. Although future studies are warranted to better delineate the metabolic actions of ACE inhibitors, current evidence supports the use of ACE inhibitors to protect from type 2 diabetes. These findings also suggest that a patient’s risk of developing type 2 diabetes should be considered when prescribing blood pressure–lowering drugs.

Article Information

Acknowledgments. The authors thank all the participants for contributing to this project, the GIANT and DIAGRAM consortia, and the UK Biobank for making data available.

Funding and Duality of Interest. Support was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and Sanofi. The ORIGIN trial and biomarker project were supported by Sanofi and CIHR. The biomarker project was led by ORIGIN investigators at the Population Health Research Institute with active collaboration of Sanofi scientists. Sanofi directly compensated Myriad RBM, Inc., for measurement of the biomarker panel and the Population Health Research Institute for scientific, methodological, and statistical work. Genetic analyses of ORIGIN participants were supported by CIHR (award 125794 to G.P.). M.P. is supported by the E.J. Moran Campbell Internal Career Research Award from McMaster University. G.P. is the Canada Research Chair in Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology and holds the CISCO Professorship in Integrated Health Biosystems. S.H. is an employee of Sanofi and also owns stocks of Sanofi. S.Y. has received research support for ORIGIN from Sanofi through his institution. S.Y. has received research grants, honoraria for lecturing, and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and Cadila for work unrelated to the present topic. H.G. holds the McMaster-Sanofi Population Health Institute Chair in Diabetes Research and Care and has received consulting fees from Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kowa, and Abbott and support for research or continuing education through his institution from Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. Both S.Y. and H.G. hold a patent that ramipril reduces diabetes, but this has been handed over to Sanofi and AstraZeneca. G.P. has received consulting fees from Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lexicomp, and Amgen and support for research through his institution from Sanofi. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. M.P., H.G., and G.P. designed the study, planned the analyses, interpreted the results, and wrote the manuscript. J.S. and M.C. contributed to the statistical and bioinformatics analyses. S.H. suggested including ACE in the biomarker panel. J.B. and S.Y. edited the manuscript. All authors contributed to the critical reading and revision of the manuscript and approved the submitted version of this manuscript. G.P. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Prior Presentation. Parts of this study were presented as a late-breaking poster at the 79th Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association, San Francisco, CA, 7–11 June 2019, and orally at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Barcelona, Spain, 16–20 September 2019.

Footnotes

  • Received October 4, 2019.
  • Accepted January 7, 2020.
https://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 https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . The top 10 causes of death [Internet]. Available from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death. Accessed 9 May 2019
  2. ↵
    1. Global Burden of Metabolic Risk Factors for Chronic Diseases Collaboration
    . Cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes mortality burden of cardiometabolic risk factors from 1980 to 2010: a comparative risk assessment. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2014;2:634–647
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Diabetes [Internet]. Available from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/diabetes. Accessed 9 May 2019
  4. ↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . 5. Prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care 2018;41(Suppl. 1):S51–S54
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Yusuf S,
    2. Gerstein H,
    3. Hoogwerf B, et al.; HOPE Study Investigators
    . Ramipril and the development of diabetes. JAMA 2001;286:1882–1885
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Braunwald E,
    2. Domanski MJ,
    3. Fowler SE, et al.; PEACE Trial Investigators
    . Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2058–2068
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Vermes E,
    2. Ducharme A,
    3. Bourassa MG,
    4. Lessard M,
    5. White M,
    6. Tardif JC; Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction
    . Enalapril reduces the incidence of diabetes in patients with chronic heart failure: insight from the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD). Circulation 2003;107:1291–1296
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Fox KM; EURopean trial On reduction of cardiac events with Perindopril in stable coronary Artery disease Investigators
    . Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study). Lancet 2003;362:782–788
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Chocron S,
    2. Baillot R,
    3. Rouleau JL, et al.; IMAGINE Investigators
    . Impact of previous percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and/or stenting revascularization on outcomes after surgical revascularization: insights from the imagine study. Eur Heart J 2008;29:673–679
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    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;355:1551–1562
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Holmes MV,
    2. Ala-Korpela M,
    3. Smith GD
    . Mendelian randomization in cardiometabolic disease: challenges in evaluating causality. Nat Rev Cardiol 2017;14:577–590
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Walker VM,
    2. Davey Smith G,
    3. Davies NM,
    4. Martin RM
    . Mendelian randomization: a novel approach for the prediction of adverse drug events and drug repurposing opportunities. Int J Epidemiol 2017;46:2078–2089
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Scott RA,
    2. Scott LJ,
    3. Mägi R, et al.; DIAbetes Genetics Replication And Meta-analysis (DIAGRAM) Consortium
    . An expanded genome-wide association study of type 2 diabetes in Europeans. Diabetes 2017;66:2888–2902
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Gerstein HC,
    2. Bosch J,
    3. Dagenais GR, et al.; ORIGIN Trial Investigators
    . Basal insulin and cardiovascular and other outcomes in dysglycemia. N Engl J Med 2012;367:319–328
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Sudlow C,
    2. Gallacher J,
    3. Allen N, et al
    . UK biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med 2015;12:e1001779
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Gerstein HC,
    2. Paré G,
    3. McQueen MJ,
    4. Lee SF,
    5. Hess S; ORIGIN Trial Investigators
    . Validation of the ORIGIN cardiovascular biomarker panel and the value of adding troponin I in dysglycemic people. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2017;102:2251–2257
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Pigeyre M,
    2. Sjaarda J,
    3. Mao S, et al
    . Identification of novel causal blood biomarkers linking metabolically favorable adiposity with type 2 diabetes risk. Diabetes Care 2019;42:1800–1808
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Liberati A,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Tetzlaff J, et al
    . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000100
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Paré G,
    2. Mao S,
    3. Deng WQ
    . A machine-learning heuristic to improve gene score prediction of polygenic traits. Sci Rep 2017;7:12665
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    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;518:197–206
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Bowden J,
    2. Davey Smith G,
    3. Burgess S
    . Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol 2015;44:512–525
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Favre GA,
    2. Esnault VLM,
    3. Van Obberghen E
    . Modulation of glucose metabolism by the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2015;308:E435–E449
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  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;42:105–116
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Prokopenko I,
    2. Poon W,
    3. Mägi R, et al
    . A central role for GRB10 in regulation of islet function in man. PLoS Genet 2014;10:e1004235
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Saxena R,
    2. Hivert M-F,
    3. Langenberg C, et al.; GIANT consortium; MAGIC investigators
    . Genetic variation in GIPR influences the glucose and insulin responses to an oral glucose challenge. Nat Genet 2010;42:142–148
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Soranzo N,
    2. Sanna S,
    3. Wheeler E, et al.; WTCCC
    . Common variants at 10 genomic loci influence hemoglobin A1(C) levels via glycemic and nonglycemic pathways [published correction appears in Diabetes 2011 60:1050–1051]. Diabetes 2010;59:3229–3239
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Zhou J-B,
    2. Yang J-K
    . Angiotensin-converting enzyme gene polymorphism is associated with proliferative diabetic retinopathy: a meta-analysis. Acta Diabetol 2010;47(Suppl. 1):187–193
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Yang J-K,
    2. Zhou J-B,
    3. Xin Z, et al
    . Interactions among related genes of renin-angiotensin system associated with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2010;33:2271–2273
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Chung C-M,
    2. Wang R-Y,
    3. Chen J-W, et al
    . A genome-wide association study identifies new loci for ACE activity: potential implications for response to ACE inhibitor. Pharmacogenomics J 2010;10:537–544
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    1. Zhou J-B,
    2. Yang J-K,
    3. Lu J-K,
    4. An Y-H
    . Angiotensin-converting enzyme gene polymorphism is associated with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Mol Biol Rep 2010;37:67–73
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Mahajan A,
    2. Taliun D,
    3. Thurner M, et al
    . Fine-mapping type 2 diabetes loci to single-variant resolution using high-density imputation and islet-specific epigenome maps. Nat Genet 2018;50:1505–1513
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Furuhashi M,
    2. Ura N,
    3. Takizawa H, et al
    . Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system decreases adipocyte size with improvement in insulin sensitivity. J Hypertens 2004;22:1977–1982
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. ↵
    1. Vincent MA,
    2. Clerk LH,
    3. Lindner JR, et al
    . Microvascular recruitment is an early insulin effect that regulates skeletal muscle glucose uptake in vivo. Diabetes 2004;53:1418–1423
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Goossens GH,
    2. McQuaid SE,
    3. Dennis AL, et al
    . Angiotensin II: a major regulator of subcutaneous adipose tissue blood flow in humans. J Physiol 2006;571:451–460
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    1. Tikellis C,
    2. Cooper ME,
    3. Thomas MC
    . Role of the renin-angiotensin system in the endocrine pancreas: implications for the development of diabetes. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 2006;38:737–751
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Goossens GH
    . The renin-angiotensin system in the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes. Obes Facts 2012;5:611–624
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Back to top
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Add to Selected Citations

ACE and Type 2 Diabetes Risk: A Mendelian Randomization Study
Marie Pigeyre, Jennifer Sjaarda, Michael Chong, Sibylle Hess, Jackie Bosch, Salim Yusuf, Hertzel Gerstein, Guillaume Paré
Diabetes Care Apr 2020, 43 (4) 835-842; DOI: 10.2337/dc19-1973
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Subjects