Associations of Observational and Genetically Determined Caffeine Intake With Coronary Artery Disease and Diabetes Mellitus
Said MA, van de Vegte YJ, Verweij N, van der Harst P
Journal of the American Heart Association · 45 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Cohort study (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- University or hospital
- Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
- Government
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- University or hospital
- Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen
- University or hospital
- Center for Information Technology
- Government
- Dutch Research Council (NWO)
- Grants
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (016.186.125)
Based on 5 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2020-12-08 · J Am Heart Assoc · vol. 9 · issue 24 · p. e016808
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Cited
- 51 citations · more than 92% of similar papers · 3.0× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 49 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Research areas
- Coffee research and impacts · Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet · Eating Disorders and Behaviors
- Keywords
- Mendelian randomization, Medicine, Observational study, Caffeine, Coronary artery disease, Hazard ratio, Internal medicine, Diabetes mellitus, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Disease, Endocrinology, Confidence interval, Genetics, Gene, Genotype, Biology
- MeSH
- humans, diabetes mellitus, type 2, caffeine, proportional hazards models, risk factors, risk reduction behavior, causality, coffee, tea, aged, middle aged, female, male, coronary artery disease, genetic variation, genome-wide association study, mendelian randomization analysis
4 authors
From NL, DE
- M. Abdullah SaidUniversity Medical Center Groningen; University of Groningen
- Yordi J. van de VegteUniversity Medical Center Groningen; University of Groningen
- Niek VerweijUniversity Medical Center Groningen; University of Groningen
- Pim van der HarstUniversity Medical Center Groningen; University of Groningen; Heidelberg University; University Hospital Heidelberg; University Medical Center Utrecht; Netherlands Heart Institute
Abstract
Background Caffeine is the most widely consumed psychostimulant and is associated with lower risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, whether these associations are causal remains unknown. This study aimed to identify genetic variants associated with caffeine intake, and to investigate evidence for causal links with CAD or T2DM. In addition, we aimed to replicate previous observational findings. Methods and Results Observational associations were tested within UK Biobank using Cox regression analyses. Moderate observational caffeine intakes from coffee or tea were associated with lower risks of CAD or T2DM, with the lowest risks at intakes of 121 to 180 mg/day from coffee for CAD (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.73-0.82; P-16]), and 301 to 360 mg/day for T2DM (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67-0.86]; P=1.57×10-5). Next, genome-wide association studies were performed on self-reported caffeine intake from coffee, tea, or both in 407 072 UK Biobank participants. These analyses identified 51 novel genetic variants associated with caffeine intake at P-8. These loci were enriched for central nervous system genes. However, in contrast to the observational analyses, 2-sample Mendelian randomization analyses using the identified loci in independent disease-specific cohorts yielded no evidence for causal links between genetically determined caffeine intake and the development of CAD or T2DM. Conclusions Mendelian randomization analyses indicate genetically determined higher caffeine intake might not protect against CAD or T2DM, despite protective associations in observational analyses.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC-ND).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.