Causal Relationship Between Abortion and Endometriosis: A Bidirectional Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q3 IMMUNOLOGY
Yan Huang, Deyu Zhang, Yingfang Zhou, Chao Peng
{"title":"Causal Relationship Between Abortion and Endometriosis: A Bidirectional Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study","authors":"Yan Huang,&nbsp;Deyu Zhang,&nbsp;Yingfang Zhou,&nbsp;Chao Peng","doi":"10.1111/aji.70064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Problem</h3>\n \n <p>The relationship between abortion and endometriosis (EMS) has been inconsistent in previous observational studies and remains controversial. We intended to examine the causal relationship between abortion and EMS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods of Study</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis using genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics, drawing data from the FinnGen database and the UK Biobank. The primary analysis utilized the random-effects inverse variance weighted (IVW) approach, complemented by weighted median, weighted mode, and MR–Egger methods. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were conducted, encompassing the Cochran's <i>Q</i> statistic for assessing heterogeneity and MR-PRESSO to detect pleiotropy. Additionally, Leave-One-Out (LOO) analysis was conducted to confirm the stability of our results.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The IVW method revealed no statistically significant causal association between various types of abortion and EMS. Specifically, the odds ratios (ORs) were as follows: medical abortion (OR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.78–1.18, <i>p</i> = 0.72), spontaneous abortion (OR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.81–1.21, <i>p</i> = 0.92), and other types of abortions (OR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99–1.03, <i>p</i> = 0.36), indicating no significant effects on the risk of EMS. Similarly, analysis in the reverse direction showed no significant causal effects of EMS on the likelihood of experiencing any type of abortion, with ORs for medical abortion (0.97, 95% CI: 0.91–1.03, <i>p</i> = 0.33), spontaneous abortion (0.98, 95% CI: 0.92–1.04, <i>p</i> = 0.50), and other abortions (1.30, 95% CI: 0.76–2.23, <i>p</i> = 0.34). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings, demonstrating no evidence of horizontal pleiotropy or significant heterogeneity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Our MR results do not support a causal relationship between abortion and EMS.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":7665,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Reproductive Immunology","volume":"93 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Reproductive Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aji.70064","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Problem

The relationship between abortion and endometriosis (EMS) has been inconsistent in previous observational studies and remains controversial. We intended to examine the causal relationship between abortion and EMS.

Methods of Study

We conducted a Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis using genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics, drawing data from the FinnGen database and the UK Biobank. The primary analysis utilized the random-effects inverse variance weighted (IVW) approach, complemented by weighted median, weighted mode, and MR–Egger methods. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were conducted, encompassing the Cochran's Q statistic for assessing heterogeneity and MR-PRESSO to detect pleiotropy. Additionally, Leave-One-Out (LOO) analysis was conducted to confirm the stability of our results.

Results

The IVW method revealed no statistically significant causal association between various types of abortion and EMS. Specifically, the odds ratios (ORs) were as follows: medical abortion (OR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.78–1.18, p = 0.72), spontaneous abortion (OR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.81–1.21, p = 0.92), and other types of abortions (OR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99–1.03, p = 0.36), indicating no significant effects on the risk of EMS. Similarly, analysis in the reverse direction showed no significant causal effects of EMS on the likelihood of experiencing any type of abortion, with ORs for medical abortion (0.97, 95% CI: 0.91–1.03, p = 0.33), spontaneous abortion (0.98, 95% CI: 0.92–1.04, p = 0.50), and other abortions (1.30, 95% CI: 0.76–2.23, p = 0.34). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings, demonstrating no evidence of horizontal pleiotropy or significant heterogeneity.

Conclusion

Our MR results do not support a causal relationship between abortion and EMS.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
314
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Reproductive Immunology is an international journal devoted to the presentation of current information in all areas relating to Reproductive Immunology. The journal is directed toward both the basic scientist and the clinician, covering the whole process of reproduction as affected by immunological processes. The journal covers a variety of subspecialty topics, including fertility immunology, pregnancy immunology, immunogenetics, mucosal immunology, immunocontraception, endometriosis, abortion, tumor immunology of the reproductive tract, autoantibodies, infectious disease of the reproductive tract, and technical news.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信