N G Forouhi1, Z Ye, A P Rickard, K T Khaw, R Luben, C Langenberg, N J Wareham. 1. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Box 285, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. nita.forouhi@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Epidemiological evidence is suggestive, but limited, for an association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and risk of type 2 diabetes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included new data from previously unpublished studies. METHODS: Using a nested case-cohort design in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk study, we identified a random subcohort and incident type 2 diabetes cases occurring between baseline (1993-1997) and 2006. In the Ely prospective study we identified incident type 2 diabetes cases between 1990 and 2003. We conducted a systematic review of prospective studies on 25(OH)D and type 2 diabetes published in MEDLINE or EMBASE until 31 January 2012, and performed a random-effects meta-analysis combining available evidence with results from the EPIC-Norfolk and Ely studies. RESULTS: In EPIC-Norfolk, baseline 25(OH)D was lower among incident type 2 diabetes cases (mean [SD] 61.6 [22.4] nmol/l; n=621) vs non-case subcohort participants (mean 65.3 [23.9] nmol/l; n=826). There was an inverse association between baseline 25(OH)D and incident type 2 diabetes in multivariable-adjusted analyses: HR (95% CI) 0.66 (0.45, 0.97), 0.53 (0.34, 0.82), 0.50 (0.32, 0.76), p trend <0.001, comparing consecutive increasing 25(OH)D quartiles with the lowest. In Ely, 37 incident type 2 diabetes cases were identified among 777 participants. In meta-analysis, the combined RR of type 2 diabetes comparing the highest with lowest quartile of 25(OH)D was 0.59 (0.52, 0.67), with little heterogeneity (I (2) =2.7%, p=0.42) between the 11 studies included (3,612 cases and 55,713 non-cases). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: These findings demonstrate an inverse association between circulating 25(OH)D and incident type 2 diabetes. However, causal inference should be addressed through adequately dosed randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation or genetic Mendelian randomisation experiments.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Epidemiological evidence is suggestive, but limited, for an association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and risk of type 2 diabetes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included new data from previously unpublished studies. METHODS: Using a nested case-cohort design in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk study, we identified a random subcohort and incident type 2 diabetes cases occurring between baseline (1993-1997) and 2006. In the Ely prospective study we identified incident type 2 diabetes cases between 1990 and 2003. We conducted a systematic review of prospective studies on 25(OH)D and type 2 diabetes published in MEDLINE or EMBASE until 31 January 2012, and performed a random-effects meta-analysis combining available evidence with results from the EPIC-Norfolk and Ely studies. RESULTS: In EPIC-Norfolk, baseline 25(OH)D was lower among incident type 2 diabetes cases (mean [SD] 61.6 [22.4] nmol/l; n=621) vs non-case subcohort participants (mean 65.3 [23.9] nmol/l; n=826). There was an inverse association between baseline 25(OH)D and incident type 2 diabetes in multivariable-adjusted analyses: HR (95% CI) 0.66 (0.45, 0.97), 0.53 (0.34, 0.82), 0.50 (0.32, 0.76), p trend <0.001, comparing consecutive increasing 25(OH)D quartiles with the lowest. In Ely, 37 incident type 2 diabetes cases were identified among 777 participants. In meta-analysis, the combined RR of type 2 diabetes comparing the highest with lowest quartile of 25(OH)D was 0.59 (0.52, 0.67), with little heterogeneity (I (2) =2.7%, p=0.42) between the 11 studies included (3,612 cases and 55,713 non-cases). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: These findings demonstrate an inverse association between circulating 25(OH)D and incident type 2 diabetes. However, causal inference should be addressed through adequately dosed randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation or genetic Mendelian randomisation experiments.
Authors: Paul Knekt; Maarit Laaksonen; Catharina Mattila; Tommi Härkänen; Jukka Marniemi; Markku Heliövaara; Harri Rissanen; Jukka Montonen; Antti Reunanen Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Debbie A Lawlor; Roger M Harbord; Jonathan A C Sterne; Nic Timpson; George Davey Smith Journal: Stat Med Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: A Catharine Ross; JoAnn E Manson; Steven A Abrams; John F Aloia; Patsy M Brannon; Steven K Clinton; Ramon A Durazo-Arvizu; J Christopher Gallagher; Richard L Gallo; Glenville Jones; Christopher S Kovacs; Susan T Mayne; Clifford J Rosen; Sue A Shapses Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Claudia Gagnon; Zhong X Lu; Dianna J Magliano; David W Dunstan; Jonathan E Shaw; Paul Z Zimmet; Ken Sikaris; Narelle Grantham; Peter R Ebeling; Robin M Daly Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Nicola Napoli; Anne L Schafer; Li-Yung Lui; Jane A Cauley; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Erin S Le Blanc; Andrew R Hoffman; Christine G Lee; Dennis M Black; Ann V Schwartz Journal: Bone Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Soo Lim; Min Joo Kim; Sung Hee Choi; Chan Soo Shin; Kyong Soo Park; Hak Chul Jang; Liana K Billings; James B Meigs Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Ben Schöttker; Christian Herder; Dietrich Rothenbacher; Laura Perna; Heiko Müller; Hermann Brenner Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2013-01-26 Impact factor: 8.082