Vitamin D and Multiple Health Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Observational Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials, and Mendelian Randomization Studies

Observational studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have yielded inconsistent results on the associations of vitamin D concentrations with multiple health outcomes. In the present umbrella review we aimed to evaluate the effects of low vitamin D concentrations and vitamin D supplementation on multiple health outcomes. We summarized current evidence obtained from meta-analyses of observational studies that examined associations between vitamin D concentrations and multiple health outcomes, meta-analyses of RCTs that investigated the effect of vitamin D supplementation on multiple health outcomes, and MR studies that explored the causal associations of vitamin D concentrations with various diseases (international prospective register of systematic reviews PROSPERO registration number CRD42018091434). A total of 296 meta-analyses of observational studies comprising 111 unique outcomes, 139 meta-analyses of RCTs comprising 46 unique outcomes, and 73 MR studies comprising 43 unique outcomes were included in the present umbrella review. Twenty-eight disease outcomes were identified by both meta-analyses of observational studies and MR studies. Seventeen of these reported disease outcomes had consistent results, demonstrating that lower concentrations of vitamin D were associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality, Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, schizophrenia, and type 2 diabetes. The combinations of consistent evidence obtained by meta-analyses of observational studies and MR studies together with meta-analyses of RCTs showed that vitamin D supplementation was associated with a decreased risk for all-cause mortality but not associated with the risk for Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, schizophrenia, or type 2 diabetes. The results indicated that vitamin D supplementation is a promising strategy with long-term preventive effects on multiple chronic diseases and thus has the potential to decrease all-cause mortality. However, the current vitamin D supplementation strategy might not be an efficient intervention approach for these diseases, suggesting that new strategies are highly needed to improve the intervention outcomes.

Identifying factors contributing to increased susceptibility to COVID-19 risk: a systematic review of Mendelian randomization studies

BACKGROUND

To summarize modifiable factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggested by Mendelian randomization studies.

METHODS

In this systematic review, we searched PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE, from inception to 15 November 2021, for Mendelian randomization studies in English. We selected studies that assessed associations of genetically predicted exposures with COVID-19-related outcomes (severity, hospitalization and susceptibility). Risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated based on the consideration of the three main assumptions for instrumental variable analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 700 studies through systematic search, of which 50 Mendelian randomization studies were included. Included studies have explored a wide range of socio-demographic factors, lifestyle attributes, anthropometrics and biomarkers, predisposition to diseases and druggable targets in COVID-19 risk. Mendelian randomization studies suggested that increases in smoking, obesity and inflammatory factors were associated with higher risk of COVID-19. Predisposition to ischaemic stroke, combined bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder, chronic kidney disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis was potentially associated with higher COVID-19 risk. Druggable targets, such as higher protein expression of histo-blood group ABO system transferase (ABO), interleukin (IL)-6 and lower protein expression of 2'-5' oligoadenylate synthetase 1 (OAS1) were associated with higher risk of COVID-19. There was no strong genetic evidence supporting the role of vitamin D, glycaemic traits and predisposition to cardiometabolic diseases in COVID-19 risk.

CONCLUSION

This review summarizes modifiable factors for intervention (e.g. smoking, obesity and inflammatory factors) and proteomic signatures (e.g. OAS1 and IL-6) that could help identify drugs for treating COVID-19.

Vitamin D and cardiovascular disorders

Vitamin D is necessary for bone health but may also have many extra-skeletal effects. The vitamin D endocrine system has major effects on gene and protein expression in many cells and tissues related to the cardiovascular system. In addition, many preclinical studies in animals with vitamin D deficiency or genetically silenced expression of the vitamin D receptor or vitamin D metabolizing enzymes suggest that the absence of vitamin D action may result in cardiovascular events. This includes dysfunctions of endothelial cells, thereby accelerating the process of atherosclerosis, hypertension or abnormal coagulation, ultimately resulting in higher risks for all major cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events. A wealth of observational studies in different parts of the world have fairly consistently found a strong association between a poor vitamin D status and surrogate markers or hard cardiovascular events. A few Mendelian randomization studies did, however, not find a link between genetically lower serum 25OHD concentrations and cardiovascular events. Finally, many RCTs could not demonstrate a consistent effect on surrogate markers, and a limited number of RCTs did so far not find whatever effect on hard cardiovascular endpoints such as myocardial ischemia or infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death. In conclusion, preclinical data generated a plausible hypothesis of a link between vitamin D status and extra-skeletal events, including cardiovascular endpoints. Whether the vitamin D endocrine system is redundant for the human vascular system or whether the RCTs have not been optimally designed to answer the research question is thus not yet settled.

HDL cholesterol concentrations and risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease - Insights from randomized clinical trials and human genetics

Through seven decades the inverse association between HDL cholesterol concentrations and risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) has been observed in case-control and prospective cohort studies. This robust inverse association fuelled the enthusiasm towards development of HDL cholesterol increasing drugs, exemplified by the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor trials and the extended-release niacin HPS2-THRIVE trial. These HDL cholesterol increasing trials were launched without conclusive evidence from human genetics, and despite discrepant species dependent evidence from animal studies. Evidence from human genetics and from randomized clinical trials over the last 13 years now point in the direction that concentrations of HDL cholesterol, do not appear to be a viable future path to target therapeutically for prevention of ASCVD. A likely explanation for the strong observational association between low HDL cholesterol and high ASCVD risk is the concomitant inverse association between HDL cholesterol and atherogenic triglyceride-rich lipoproteins. The purpose of the present review is to bring HDL cholesterol increasing trials into a human genetics context exemplified by candidate gene studies of key players in HDL biogenesis as well as by HDL cholesterol related genome-wide association studies.

Mendelian Randomization Studies Promise to Shorten the Journey to FDA Approval

There has been a dearth of new drugs approved for cardiovascular disorders. The cost is prohibitive, averaging to $2.5 billion, and requiring 12.5 years. This is in large part due to the high failure rate, with only 5% approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Despite preclinical studies showing potential safety and efficacy, most fail when they go to clinical trials phase I to III. One cause for failure is the drug target, often discovered to be a biomarker rather than causative for the disease. Mendelian randomization (MR) studies would determine whether the drug target is causative and could save millions of dollars and time, and prevent unnecessary exposure to adverse drug effects. This was demonstrated in 3 clinical trials that were negative with 2 drugs, veraspladib and darapladib. MR studies during the trials showed the targets of secretory and lipoprotein-associated phospholipids A2 are not causative for coronary artery disease and predicted negative results. The requirement for MR studies is a genetic risk variant with altered function, randomized at conception that remains fixed throughout one’s lifetime. It is not confounded by dietary, lifestyle, or socioeconomic factors. It is more sensitive than randomized controlled trials because exposure to the risk factor is fixed for a lifetime. MR studies showed plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol is not a causative target of coronary artery disease, and neither is uric acid, C-reactive protein, and others. MR studies are highly sensitive in determining whether drug targets are causative, and are relatively easy, inexpensive, and not time consuming. It is recommended that drug targets undergo MR studies before proceeding to randomized controlled trials.