New Insight into the Causal Relationship Between Graves' Disease Liability and Drug Eruption: a Mendelian Randomization Study

Overview

Journal Front Immunol

Specialty Allergy & Immunology

Date 2023 Dec 11

PMID 38077385

Authors

Dide Wu

Boyuan Liu

Wei Xian

Yuxin Yang

Jinjian Li

Shubin Hong

Yanbing Li

Haipeng Xiao

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Graves' disease (GD) and drug eruption are closely associated and frequently observed in the clinical setting. However, it remains unclear whether a causal relationship exists between these two conditions. The aim of the study is to investigate whether GD is causal to drug eruptions using two-sample Mendelian randomization.

Methods: We launched a two-sample MR to investigate whether GD is causal to drug eruption using Genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary data from Biobank Japan and FinnGen. Genetic variants were used as instrumental variables to avoid confounding bias. Statistical methods including inverse variance weighted (IVW), weighted median, MR-Egger, and MR-PRESSO were conducted to identify the robustness of the causal effect.

Results: Genetically predicted GD may increase the risk of drug eruption by 30.3% (OR=1.303, 95% CI 1.119-1.516, p<0.001) in the Asian population. In European populations, GD may increase the generalized drug eruption by 15.9% (OR=1.159, 95%CI 0.982-1.367, p=0.080).

Conclusions: We found GD is potentially causal to drug eruption. This finding expanded the view of the frequently observed co-existence of GD and adverse drug reactions involving the skin. The mechanism remains for further investigation.

References

Burch H, Cooper D . ANNIVERSARY REVIEW: Antithyroid drug therapy: 70 years later. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018; 179(5):R261-R274. DOI: 10.1530/EJE-18-0678. View

Burgess S, Thompson S . Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017; 32(5):377-389. PMC: 5506233. DOI: 10.1007/s10654-017-0255-x. View

Sheehan N, Didelez V . Epidemiology, genetic epidemiology and Mendelian randomisation: more need than ever to attend to detail. Hum Genet. 2019; 139(1):121-136. PMC: 6942032. DOI: 10.1007/s00439-019-02027-3. View

Hemani G, Zheng J, Elsworth B, Wade K, Haberland V, Baird D . The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome. Elife. 2018; 7. PMC: 5976434. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.34408. View

Zhang J, Lei Z, Xu C, Zhao J, Kang X . Current Perspectives on Severe Drug Eruption. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2021; 61(3):282-298. PMC: 8286049. DOI: 10.1007/s12016-021-08859-0. View

Burgess S, Small D, Thompson S . A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015; 26(5):2333-2355. PMC: 5642006. DOI: 10.1177/0962280215597579. View

Burgess S, Davies N, Thompson S . Bias due to participant overlap in two-sample Mendelian randomization. Genet Epidemiol. 2016; 40(7):597-608. PMC: 5082560. DOI: 10.1002/gepi.21998. View

Salvador F, Sanchez-Montalva A, Martinez-Gallo M, Sala-Cunill A, Vinas L, Garcia-Prat M . Evaluation of cytokine profile and HLA association in benznidazole related cutaneous reactions in patients with Chagas disease. Clin Infect Dis. 2015; 61(11):1688-94. DOI: 10.1093/cid/civ690. View

Hoetzenecker W, Nageli M, Mehra E, Jensen A, Saulite I, Schmid-Grendelmeier P . Adverse cutaneous drug eruptions: current understanding. Semin Immunopathol. 2015; 38(1):75-86. DOI: 10.1007/s00281-015-0540-2. View

10.

Kamat D, Dutta P, Kumaran M . Identify the triad. Eur J Intern Med. 2018; 59:e7-e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2018.05.010. View

11.

Manna D, Roy G, Mugesh G . Antithyroid drugs and their analogues: synthesis, structure, and mechanism of action. Acc Chem Res. 2013; 46(11):2706-15. DOI: 10.1021/ar4001229. View

12.

Tempark T, John S, Rerknimitr P, Satapornpong P, Sukasem C . Drug-Induced Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions: Insights Into Clinical Presentation, Immunopathogenesis, Diagnostic Methods, Treatment, and Pharmacogenomics. Front Pharmacol. 2022; 13:832048. PMC: 9065683. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.832048. View

13.

Bowden J, Del Greco M F, Minelli C, Davey Smith G, Sheehan N, Thompson J . A framework for the investigation of pleiotropy in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization. Stat Med. 2017; 36(11):1783-1802. PMC: 5434863. DOI: 10.1002/sim.7221. View

14.

Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock P, Burgess S . Consistent Estimation in Mendelian Randomization with Some Invalid Instruments Using a Weighted Median Estimator. Genet Epidemiol. 2016; 40(4):304-14. PMC: 4849733. DOI: 10.1002/gepi.21965. View

15.

Antonelli A, Ferrari S, Ragusa F, Elia G, Paparo S, Ruffilli I . Graves' disease: Epidemiology, genetic and environmental risk factors and viruses. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020; 34(1):101387. DOI: 10.1016/j.beem.2020.101387. View

16.

Lawn R, Sallis H, Taylor A, Wootton R, Davey Smith G, Davies N . Schizophrenia risk and reproductive success: a Mendelian randomization study. R Soc Open Sci. 2019; 6(3):181049. PMC: 6458425. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.181049. View

17.

Davies N, Holmes M, Davey Smith G . Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: a guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians. BMJ. 2018; 362:k601. PMC: 6041728. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k601. View

18.

Smith T, Hegedus L . Graves' Disease. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(16):1552-1565. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1510030. View

19.

Bowden J, Del Greco M F, Minelli C, Zhao Q, Lawlor D, Sheehan N . Improving the accuracy of two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization: moving beyond the NOME assumption. Int J Epidemiol. 2018; 48(3):728-742. PMC: 6659376. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyy258. View

20.

Vargas E, Terleira A, Hernando F, Perez E, Cordon C, Moreno A . Effect of adverse drug reactions on length of stay in surgical intensive care units. Crit Care Med. 2003; 31(3):694-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000049947.80131.ED. View