Association of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Risk of Psychiatric Disorders: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study

Abstract

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent respiratory disorder often accompanied by comorbidities. Although the past few years have witnessed significant scientific progress, the potential relationship between COPD and mental illness remains a subject of debate.

Materials and Methods

We retrieved COPD data from the genome-wide association studies (GWAS) directory and data on mental illnesses, including Alzheimer’s disease, schizophrenia, panic disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, multiple disabilities, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and schizophrenia, from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. A two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach was applied to explore the association between COPD and mental illnesses, with subgroup analyses based on smoking history.

Results

Our two-sample MR analysis revealed no causal link between overall COPD and the development of common psychiatric disorders. Subgroup analyses based on smoking history showed no causal association between never-smokers with COPD and the occurrence of psychiatric disorders. However, ever-smokers with COPD were associated with a significantly increased risk of ADHD (OR: 2.303, 95% CI: 1.558–3.403, P = 0.001) and a modestly reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease (OR: 0.994, 95% CI: 0.988–0.999, P = 0.034).

Conclusion

COPD patients with a history of smoking face a higher risk of developing ADHD but may experience a slight reduction in the risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Conversely, there was no observed causal association between COPD and psychiatric disorders among patients who never smoked.

Keywords:

• chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• psychiatric disorders
• Mendelian randomization

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

As per the regulations outlined in People’s Republic of China’s “Notice on the Implementation of Ethical Review Measures for Life Science and Medical Research”, our study falls under the exemption criteria specified in Discussion of the regulation. Therefore, ethics approval was not required for this research, as it met the following conditions:

1. Exemption Premise: This study used only publicly available data, especially summary level data from GWAS, did not involve sensitive personal information, did not cause harm to individuals, and did not compromise their privacy.

2. Exemption Provision: Our research adheres to the exemption circumstances outlined in Discussion of the regulation: We utilized lawfully obtained publicly available data for our analysis. The data used in this study were fully anonymized, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of individuals. Our research focuses on analyzing existing data and does not involve interventions, human biological samples, or activities related to reproductive cloning, genetic manipulation, or germ cells.

Due to the nature of our study and its compliance with the exemption criteria, we did not require explicit ethics approval. And we affirm that this research was conducted in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations, and ethical standards.

Acknowledgments

We thank Home for Researchers editorial team for language editing service.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Additional information

Funding

There is no funding to report.