Mendelian randomization reveals a potential genetic link between metabolic syndrome traits and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, suggesting metabolic interventions could aid treatment.
Prior epidemiological investigations have indicated a linkage between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The objective of the present research was to elucidate the inherited causal relationship of MetS with IPF. A 2-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) design was adopted to assess the genetic cause-effect link between MetS and IPF. Multiple analytical strategies, such as inverse-variance weighted (IVW), MR-Egger, weighted median, and weighted mode, were implemented. Outlier evaluation was carried out through a leave-one-out analysis. MR-PRESSO and the MR-Egger intercept test were undertaken to reduce the influence of horizontal pleiotropy. Heterogeneity was appraised using Cochran’s Q statistic. IVW analysis suggested a potential causal association between waist circumference and IPF (odds ratio: 1.0016, 95% confidence interval: 1.0006–1.0025, P = .001), although this association was not consistently observed in other MR models. By contrast, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol showed a more consistent positive association with IPF, supported by IVW, MR-Egger, and weighted mode analyses (odds ratio: 1.0006, 95% confidence interval: 1.0001–1.0012, P = .033) The heterogeneity test results indicated that our IVW analysis findings exhibited minimal presence of heterogeneity ( P > .05). The results of the pleiotropy test showed that there was no pleiotropy in our results ( P > .05). No genetic causal association was found for MetS as a whole, essential hypertension, fasting blood glucose, or triglycerides with IPF. This study indicates a potential causal link between metabolic traits such as waist circumference and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol with IPF. Future clinical research is warranted to further confirm these associations and to clarify their relevance in IPF prevention and treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: