You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 301 No. 22, June 10, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (1)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders
 •Lipids and Lipid Disorders
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction
 •Genetics
 •Genetic Disorders
 •Genetics, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Mendelian Randomization

Nature's Randomized Trial in the Post–Genome Era

George Thanassoulis, MD; Christopher J. O’Donnell, MD, MPH

JAMA. 2009;301(22):2386-2388.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Despite several observational studies showing that lipoprotein(a) is associated with myocardial infarction (MI),1-2 only circumstantial evidence exists regarding the causal nature of this association. Observational epidemiological studies, even with a sound prospective design, can provide hints to disease pathogenesis when the effect size is modest but cannot provide definitive evidence for causal relationships. Much of the current understanding of the causal factors in cardiovascular disease, such as the role of low-density lipoprotein, has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials (RCTs).3-4 However, RCTs are not always feasible. In the case of lipoprotein(a), the modest effect size and the lack of specific lipoprotein(a)-lowering therapy are major obstacles to obtaining causal evidence for its role in cardiovascular disease. In this issue of JAMA, Kamstrup and colleagues5 provide insights using a mendelian randomization approach and provide evidence for the causal role of lipoprotein(a) in MI. . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliations: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study, Framingham, Massachusetts (Drs Thanassoulis and O’Donnell); Division of Intramural Research, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland (Dr O’Donnell); Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts (Dr Thanassoulis); and Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (Dr O’Donnell).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Genetically Elevated Lipoprotein(a) and Increased Risk of Myocardial Infarction
Pia R. Kamstrup, Anne Tybjærg-Hansen, Rolf Steffensen, and Børge G. Nordestgaard
JAMA. 2009;301(22):2331-2339.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Biomarkers and Cardiovascular Disease: Determining Causality and Quantifying Contribution to Risk Assessment
Shah and de Lemos
JAMA 2009;302:92-93.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.