| Literature DB >> 25854833 |
Jiying Wang1, Shishi Lv2, Guo Chen3, Chenlin Gao4, Jianhua He5, Haihua Zhong6, Yong Xu7.
Abstract
Although emerging evidence suggests that low levels of vitamin D may contribute to the development of autoimmune disease, the relationship between vitamin D reduction and autoimmune thyroid disease (AITD), which includes Graves' disease (GD) and Hashimoto thyroiditis (HT), is still controversial. The aim was to evaluate the association between vitamin D levels and AITD through systematic literature review. We identified all studies that assessed the association between vitamin D and AITD from PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases. We included studies that compared vitamin D levels between AITD cases and controls as well as those that measured the odds of vitamin D deficiency by AITD status. We combined the standardized mean differences (SMD) or the odds ratios (OR) in a random effects model. Twenty case-control studies provided data for a quantitative meta-analysis. Compared to controls, AITD patients had lower levels of 25(OH)D (SMD: -0.99, 95% CI: -1.31, -0.66) and were more likely to be deficient in 25(OH)D (OR 2.99, 95% CI: 1.88, 4.74). Furthermore, subgroup analyses result showed that GD and HT patients also had lower 25(OH)D levels and were more likely to have a 25(OH)D deficiency, suggesting that low levels of serum 25(OH)D was related to AITD.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25854833 PMCID: PMC4425156 DOI: 10.3390/nu7042485
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Flow diagram showing study selection.
Studies with continuous data on vitamin D levels in AITD and controls.
| First Author and Year | AITD ( | AITD, males, % | AITD, Year, mean ± SD | Assay Method | Season of Collected Samples | 25(OH)D in AITD, ng/mL mean ± SD | 25(OH)D in Control, ng/mL mean ± SD | Quality of Study (Score) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yusuda T 2013 | 36/85 | 0 | 37.8 ± 8.1 | CPBA | Sum, A | 14.5 ± 2.9 | 18.6 ± 5.3 | <0.0005 | 8 |
| Tamer G 2011 | 161/323 | 6/161 | 35.4 ± 7.9 | RIA | W | 16.3 ± 10.4 | 29.6 ± 25.5 | <0.0001 | 9 |
| Yusuda T 2012 | 26/72 | 0 | 37.3 ± 13.0 | CPBA | W, S | 14.4 ± 4.9 | 17.1 ± 4.1 | <0.05 | 8 |
| Bozkurt NC 2013 | 360/540 | 114/360 | 42.55 ± 11.35 | ELISA | Sum | 12.2 ± 5.6 | 15.4 ± 6.8 | <0.001 | 8 |
| Effraimidis G 2012 | 67/134 | NG | 38.3 ± 11.5 | RIA | ALL | 21.6 ± 9.2 | 21.2 ± 9.3 | NS | 8 |
| Han Y 2013 | 30/50 | 6/30 | 35.7 ± 7.3 | HPLC | W, S | 17.51 ± 6.14 | 58.84 ± 8.01 | <0.01 | 7 |
| Miao W 2013 | 70/140 | 22/70 | 40 ± 15.2 | ECLIA | W, S | 12.7 ± 5.25 | 16.56 ± 5.8 | <0.01 | 9 |
| Huang ZL 2013 | 40/60 | 6/40 | 44.6 ± 8.5 | ECLIA | S, A | 16.26 ± 4.16 | 49.5 ± 8.68 | <0.01 | 8 |
| Liu XH 2012 | 160/325 | 25/160 | 43.25 ± 8.55 | ECLIA | W, S, Sum | 13.51 ± 5.88 | 19.48 ± 10.12 | <0.05 | 8 |
| Xuan LY 2014 | 89/134 | 32/89 | 33.92 ± 12.70 | ELISA | ALL | 19.04 ± 9.72 | 29.95 ± 13.86 | <0.01 | 7 |
| Shin DY 2014 | 111/304 | 21/111 | 48.7 ± 12.7 | RIA | ALL | 12.6 ± 5.5 | 14.5 ± 7.3 | <0.001 | 8 |
| Li YB 2014 | 40/90 | 0 | 34 ± 14 | ELISA | W, S | 13 ± 5 | 29 ± 5 | <0.05 | 8 |
| Zhang H 2014 | 70/140 | 28/70 | 31.77 ± 10.32 | ELISA | S | 21.15 ± 4.41 | 24.28 ± 4.37 | <0.05 | 8 |
| Jyotsna VP 2012 | 80/160 | 18/80 | 36.33 ± 11.15 | RIA | ALL | 12.67 ± 6.24 | 10.99 ± 7.05 | <0.05 | 7 |
| Mansournia N 2014 | 41/86 | NG | 42.3 ± 15.3 | HPLC | A | 15.9 ± 12.1 | 24.4 ± 17.3 | <0.01 | 8 |
| Zheng Y 2014 | 33/72 | 14/33 | 35.3 ± 9.23 | ELISA | ALL | 15.71 ± 6.79 | 30.84 ± 8.57 | <0.01 | 7 |
| Wang YC 2014 | 60/90 | 22/60 | 35.1 ± 7.95 | ECLIA | W, S, Sum | 12.28 ± 5.83 | 18.1 ± 5.92 | <0.01 | 7 |
| Kang DH 2013 | 280/719 | 100/280 | 42.5 ± 7.9 | ELISA | A | 21.68 ± 9.54 | 24.05 ± 9.58 | <0.01 | 7 |
| Wang ZS 2014 | 28/79 | 0 | NG | ECLIA | ALL | 26.98 ± 9.02 | 19.05 ± 5.47 | <0.01 | 7 |
(Introductions of Table 1: (1) Assay method: ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; HPLC, high performance liquid chromatography; ECLIA, chemiluminescence immunoassay; CPBA, competitive protein binding assay; RIA, radioimmunoassay; (2) Season: S, spring; Sum, summer; A, autumn; W, winter. (3) N, number; NG, not given; NS, not significant.)
Studies with dichotomous data on vitamin D deficiency and no deficiency in AITD and controls.
| First Author and Year | AITD( | AITD, Males, % | AITD, year (Mean or Range) | Assay Method | Season of Collected Samples | 25(OH)D Deficiency in AITD (N) | 25(OH)D Deficiency in Control (N) | Criterion of 25(OH)D Deficiency | Quality of Study (Score) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yusuda T 2012 | 26/72 | 0 | 37.3 ± 13.0 | CPBA | W, S | 17 | 15 | <15 ng/mL | <0.05 | 8 |
| Bozkurt NC 2013 | 360/540 | 57/180 | 42.55 ± 11.35 | ELISA | Sum | 150 | 37 | <10 ng/mL | <0.001 | 8 |
| Effraimidis G 2012 | 67/134 | NG | 38.3 ± 11.5 | RIA | ALL | 33 | 23 | <20 ng/mL | =0.05 | 8 |
| HanY 2013 | 30/50 | 6/30 | 35.7 ± 7.3 | HPLC | W, S | 16 | 0 | <20 ng/mL | <0.01 | 7 |
| Miao W 2013 | 70/140 | 22/70 | 40 ± 15.2 | ECLIA | W, S | 65 | 54 | <20 ng/mL | <0.05 | 9 |
| Kivity S 2011 | 50/148 | 6/50 | 45 ± 16 | DCCLIA | S | 35 | 37 | <10 ng/mL | <0.001 | 8 |
| Zhang H 2014 | 70/140 | 28/70 | 31.77 ± 10.32 | ELISA | S | 30 | 10 | <20 ng/mL | <0.05 | 8 |
| Kang DH 2013 | 280/719 | 100/280 | 42.5 ± 7.9 | ELISA | A | 133 | 158 | <20 ng/mL | <0.01 | 7 |
| Mansourria N 2014 | 41/86 | NG | 42.3 ± 15.3 | HPLC | A | 34 | 24 | <20 ng/mL | 0.82 | 8 |
(Introductions of Table 2: (1) Assay method: ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; HPLC, high performance liquid chromatography; ECLIA, chemiluminescence immunoassay; CPBA, competitive protein binding assay; DCCLIA, direct competitive chemiluminescence immunoassay; RIA, radioimmunoassay. (2) Season: S, spring; Sum, summer; A, autumn; W, winter. (3) N, number; NG, not given; NS, not significant.)
Figure 2Meta-analysis of studies (chronologically ordered) reporting 25(OH)D levels in autoimmune thyroid disease (AITD) vs. controls, standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval.
Figure 3Meta-analysis of studies (chronologically ordered) reporting dichotomous data on 25(OH)D levels in autoimmune thyroid disease (AITD) vs. controls and estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval.
Figure 4Meta-analysis of studies (chronologically ordered) reporting 25(OH)D levels in Graves’s disease vs. controls, standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval.
Figure 5Meta-analysis of studies (chronologically ordered) reporting dichotomous outcomes of 25(OH)D levels in Graves’ disease vs. controls and estimated ORs with 95% confidence interval.
Figure 6Meta-analysis of studies (chronologically ordered) reporting 25(OH)D levels in Hashimoto thyroiditis vs. controls, standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval.
Figure 7Meta-analysis of studies (chronologically ordered) reporting dichotomous data of 25(OH)D levels in Hashimoto thyroiditis vs. controls and estimated ORs with 95% confidence interval.