Normal vitamin D levels are associated with spontaneous hepatitis B surface antigen seroclearance

Chronic Hepatitis B and Related Liver Diseases Are Associated with Reduced 25-Hydroxy-Vitamin D Levels: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hepatitis B infection is a major public health problem globally leading to chronic liver disease and death, which are influenced by various environmental and host factors including serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels. There is no comprehensive systematic review reporting the association of serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels and different stages of chronic hepatitis B. This study aimed to analyze the association of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels in chronic hepatitis B with various determinants and outcomes. A bibliographic search in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus was conducted using the search terms “Vitamin D”, “cholecalciferol”, “calcitriol”, “Hepatitis B”, and “HBV”, which were published until September 2022. Meta-analysis using the “metafor” package in R was conducted with a random effect model. This analysis included 33 studies with 6360 chronic hepatitis B patients. The pooled estimates of serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D level among CHB cases was 21.05 ng/mL and was significantly lower compared to healthy controls. (p < 0.005). Reduced serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D level was significantly associated with the severity of liver fibrosis as well as HBe positivity. This analysis suggests that serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels are associated with disease activity and pathobiology, although the exact nature of the cause−effect relationship cannot be discerned from this study.

Vitamin D supplementation for chronic liver diseases in adults

BACKGROUND

Vitamin D deficiency is often reported in people with chronic liver diseases. Improving vitamin D status could therefore be beneficial for people with chronic liver diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation in adults with chronic liver diseases.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov  and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and enquired experts and pharmaceutical companies as to additional trials. All searches were up to November 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults with chronic liver diseases. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D₂ (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), 25-hydroxyvitamin D (calcidiol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 randomised clinical trials with 1979 adult participants. This review update added 12 trials with 945 participants. We assessed all trials as at high risk of bias. All trials had a parallel-group design. Eleven trials were conducted in high-income countries and 16 trials in middle-income countries. Ten trials included participants with chronic hepatitis C, five trials participants with liver cirrhosis, 11 trials participants with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and one trial liver transplant recipients. All of the included trials reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants. Participants in nine trials had baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at or above vitamin D adequacy (20 ng/mL), whilst participants in the remaining 18 trials were vitamin D insufficient (less than 20 ng/mL). Twenty-four trials administered vitamin D orally, two trials intramuscularly, and one trial intramuscularly and orally. In all 27 trials, the mean duration of vitamin D supplementation was 6 months, and the mean follow-up of participants from randomisation was 7 months. Twenty trials (1592 participants; 44% women; mean age 48 years) tested vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol); three trials (156 participants; 28% women; mean age 54 years) tested vitamin D₂; four trials (291 participants; 60% women; mean age 52 years) tested 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D; and one trial (18 participants; 0% women; mean age 52 years) tested 25-hydroxyvitamin D. One trial did not report the form of vitamin D. Twelve trials used a placebo, whilst the other 15 trials used no intervention in the control group. Fourteen trials appeared to be free of vested interest. Eleven trials did not provide any information on clinical trial support or sponsorship. Two trials were funded by industry. We are very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.45; 27 trials; 1979 participants). The mean follow-up was 7 months (range 1 to 18 months). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on liver-related mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.08 to 34.66; 1 trial; 18 participants) (follow-up: 12 months); serious adverse events such as hypercalcaemia (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.8; 1 trial; 76 participants); myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.08 to 6.81; 2 trials; 86 participants); thyroiditis (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.91; 1 trial; 68 participants); circular haemorrhoidal prolapse (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 65.9; 1 trial; 20 participants); bronchopneumonia (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.32; 1 trial 20 participants); and non-serious adverse events. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes is very low. We found no data on liver-related morbidity such as gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, ascites, or liver cancer. There were also no data on health-related quality of life. The evidence is also very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on rapid, early, and sustained virological response in people with chronic hepatitis C.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the high risk of bias and insufficient power of the included trials and the very low certainty of the available evidence, vitamin D supplementation versus placebo or no intervention may increase or reduce all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, serious adverse events, or non-serious adverse events in adults with chronic liver diseases. There is a lack of data on liver-related morbidity and health-related quality of life. Further evidence on clinically important outcomes analysed in this review is needed.

Controversial Effects of Vitamin D and Related Genes on Viral Infections, Pathogenesis, and Treatment Outcomes

Vitamin D (VD) plays an essential role in mineral homeostasis and bone remodeling. A number of different VD-related genes (VDRG) are required for the metabolic activation of VD and the subsequent induction of its target genes. They include a set of genes that encode for VD-binding protein, metabolic enzymes, and the VD receptor. In addition to its well-characterized skeletal function, the immunoregulatory activities of VD and the related polymorphisms of VDRG have been reported and linked to its therapeutic and preventive actions for the control of several viral diseases. However, in regards to their roles in the progression of viral diseases, inconsistent and, in some cases, contradictory results also exist. To resolve this discrepancy, I conducted an extensive literature search by using relevant keywords on the PubMed website. Based on the volume of hit papers related to a certain viral infection, I summarized and compared the effects of VD and VDRG polymorphism on the infection, pathogenesis, and treatment outcomes of clinically important viral diseases. They include viral hepatitis, respiratory viral infections, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and other viral diseases, which are caused by herpesviruses, dengue virus, rotavirus, and human papillomavirus. This review will provide the most current information on the nutritional and clinical utilization of VD and VDRG in the management of the key viral diseases. This information should be valuable not only to nutritionists but also to clinicians who wish to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of VD to virally infected patients.

The interplay between vitamin D and viral infections

The pleiotropic role of vitamin D has been explored over the past decades and there is compelling evidence for an epidemiological association between poor vitamin D status and a variety of diseases. While the potential anti-viral effect of vitamin D has recently been described, the underlying mechanisms by which vitamin D deficiency could contribute to viral disease development remain poorly understood. The possible interactions between viral infections and vitamin D appear to be more complex than previously thought. Recent findings indicate a complex interplay between viral infections and vitamin D, including the induction of anti-viral state, functional immunoregulatory features, interaction with cellular and viral factors, induction of autophagy and apoptosis, and genetic and epigenetic alterations. While crosstalk between vitamin D and intracellular signalling pathways may provide an essential modulatory effect on viral gene transcription, the immunomodulatory effect of vitamin D on viral infections appears to be transient. The interplay between viral infections and vitamin D remains an intriguing concept, and the global imprint that vitamin D can have on the immune signature in the context of viral infections is an area of growing interest.

Vitamin D and the Liver-Correlation or Cause?

Vitamin D is becoming increasingly accepted as an important physiological regulator outside of its classical role in skeletal homeostasis. A growing body of evidence connects vitamin D with hepatic disease. This review summarises the role of vitamin D in liver homeostasis and disease and discusses the therapeutic potential of vitamin D-based treatments to protect against hepatic disease progression and to improve response to treatment. While pre-clinical experimental data is promising, clinical trials around liver diseases have mostly been under-powered, and further studies will be required to clarify whether vitamin D or vitamin D analogues have beneficial effects on liver disease.

Vitamin D supplementation for chronic liver diseases in adults

BACKGROUND

Vitamin D deficiency is often reported in people with chronic liver diseases. Therefore, improving vitamin D status could have a beneficial effect on people with chronic liver diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation in people with chronic liver diseases.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We also searched databases of ongoing trials and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials. All searches were up to January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults with chronic liver diseases. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), 25-hydroxyvitamin D (calcidiol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We contacted authors of the trials to ask for missing information. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs), and for continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and Trial Sequential Analyses-adjusted CIs. We calculated Peto odds ratio (OR) for rare events. We considered risk of bias in domains to assess the risk of systematic errors. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risk of random errors. We assessed the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 randomised clinical trials with 1034 participants randomised. All trials had a parallel group design. Nine trials were conducted in high-income countries and six trials in middle-income countries. All trials were at high risk of bias. Six trials included participants with chronic hepatitis C, four trials included participants with liver cirrhosis, four trials included participants with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and one trial included liver transplant recipients. All included trials reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants. Participants in six trials had baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at or above vitamin D adequacy (20 ng/mL), while participants in the remaining nine trials were vitamin D insufficient (less than 20 ng/mL). All trials administered vitamin D orally. Mean duration of vitamin D supplementation was 0.5 years and follow-up was 0.6 years. Eleven trials (831 participants; 40% women; mean age 52 years) tested vitamin D3, one trial (18 men; mean age 61 years) with three intervention groups tested vitamin D2 and 25-dihydroxyvitamin D in separate groups, and three trials (185 participants; 55% women; mean age 55 years) tested 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D. Seven trials used placebo, and eight trials used no intervention in the control group.The effect of vitamin D on all-cause mortality at the end of follow-up is uncertain because the results were imprecise (Peto OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.38; I2 = 32%; 15 trials; 1034 participants; very low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis on all-cause mortality was performed based on a mortality rate in the control group of 10%, a relative risk reduction of 28% in the experimental intervention group, a type I error of 2.5%, and type II error of 10% (90% power). There was no diversity. The required information size was 6396 participants. The cumulative Z-curve did not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit or harm after the 15th trial, and the Trial Sequential Analyses-adjusted CI was 0.00 to 2534.The effect of vitamin D on liver-related mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.08 to 34.66; 1 trial; 18 participants) and on serious adverse events such as hypercalcaemia (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.8; 1 trial; 76 participants), myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.08 to 6.81; 2 trials; 86 participants), and thyroiditis (RR 0.33 95% CI 0.01 to 7.91; 1 trial; 68 participants) is uncertain because the results were imprecise. The evidence on all these outcomes is of very low quality. The effect of vitamin D3 on non-serious adverse events such as glossitis (RR 3.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 87.6; 1 trial; 65 participants; very low quality of evidence) is uncertain because the result was imprecise.Due to few data, we did not conduct Trial Sequential Analysis on liver-related mortality, and serious and non-serious adverse events.We found no data on liver-related morbidity and health-related quality of life in the randomised trials included in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain as to whether vitamin D supplements in the form of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, or 25-dihydroxyvitamin D have important effect on all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, or on serious or non-serious adverse events because the results were imprecise. There is no evidence on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on liver-related morbidity and health-related quality of life. Our conclusions are based on few trials with an insufficient number of participants and on lack of data on clinically important outcomes. In addition, the analysed trials are at high risk of bias with significant intertrial heterogeneity. The overall quality of evidence is very low.

The prevalence and severity of 25-(OH)-vitamin D insufficiency in HCV infected and in HBV infected patients: a prospective study

AIM OF THE STUDY

To assess the prevalence and severity of vitamin D insufficiency in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This prospective study included 90 patients with chronic hepatitis C and 35 patients with chronic hepatitis B admitted to the Infectious Diseases Department between March 2013 and May 2014. Patients with chronic liver disease other than viral hepatitis, HIV co-infection, advanced liver disease and a history of diseases influencing vitamin D status were excluded. Serum vitamin D measurement as well as liver function, viral load, HCV genotype, interleukin 28 and liver fibrosis assessments were performed.

RESULTS

In all patients, the mean vitamin D serum concentration was 18.8 (± 8.9) ng/ml. The mean vitamin D level in HBV infected patients was lower than in HCV infected patients (17.6 ng/ml vs. 19.3 ng/ml; p = 0.43). Vitamin D status was assessed in relation to viral load, HCV genotype, interleukin 28 and sex, but the differences were not significant. In both groups, serum vitamin D levels were significantly lower in winter compared to summer (14.2 ng/ml vs. 23.9 ng/ml in patients infected with HCV [p < 0.000001] and 14.7 ng/ml vs. 23.8 ng/ml in patients infected with HBV [p < 0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that in patients with chronic hepatitis C or chronic hepatitis B, insufficient 25(OH)D concentrations occur very often, but are not associated with poor virological characteristics. The only factor influencing the vitamin D level was the season.

Role of vitamin D in liver diseases

Liver diseases, including hepatitis B, hepatitis C, fatty liver diseases, cirrhosis and liver cancer, seriously affect our lives, and patients with liver diseases often have different levels of vitamin D deficiency. The immune-regulatory, anti-infection and anticancer functions of vitamin D make it play a certain role in the occurrence and development of liver diseases. How to use vitamin D to delay the progression of liver diseases will be a valuable topic.