| Literature DB >> 34727949 |
Nicolien A van Vliet1, Maxime M Bos1,2, Carisha S Thesing3, Layal Chaker2,4,5, Maik Pietzner6, Evelyn Houtman7, Matt J Neville8,9, Ruifang Li-Gao10, Stella Trompet1, Rima Mustafa11, Fariba Ahmadizar2, Marian Beekman7, Mariska Bot3, Kathrin Budde12, Constantinos Christodoulides8,9, Abbas Dehghan11,13, Christian Delles14, Paul Elliott11,13,15,16, Marina Evangelou17, He Gao11, Mohsen Ghanbari2, Antonius E van Herwaarden18, M Arfan Ikram2, Martin Jaeger19,20, J Wouter Jukema21,22, Ibrahim Karaman11,13, Fredrik Karpe8,9, Margreet Kloppenburg10,23, Jennifer M T A Meessen7,24, Ingrid Meulenbelt7, Yuri Milaneschi3, Simon P Mooijaart1,25, Dennis O Mook-Kanamori10,26, Mihai G Netea19, Romana T Netea-Maier19, Robin P Peeters4,5, Brenda W J H Penninx3, Naveed Sattar27, P Eline Slagboom7,28, H Eka D Suchiman7, Henry Völzke29, Ko Willems van Dijk30,31,32, Raymond Noordam33, Diana van Heemst34.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest interconnections between thyroid status, metabolism, and risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), but causality remains to be proven. The present study aimed to investigate the potential causal relationship between thyroid status and cardiovascular disease and to characterize the metabolomic profile associated with thyroid status.Entities:
Keywords: Coronary artery disease; Mendelian randomization; Metabolomics; Thyroid hormones
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34727949 PMCID: PMC8565073 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-021-02130-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med ISSN: 1741-7015 Impact factor: 11.150
Population characteristics of biochemically euthyroid individuals in included cohorts (n = 9432)
| 500 FG | GARP | LLS | NESDA | PROSPER | RS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years (median (IQR)) | 23.0 (21.0–26.0) | 59.8 (55.1–65.5) | 65.7 (61.8–70.4) | 43.0 (30.0–53.0) | 75.4 (72.9–78.3) | 68.9 (65.2–73.3) |
| Women | 200 (55.2) | 181 (78.7) | 202 (48.2) | 1594 (64.6) | 2195 (48.6) | 773 (53.6) |
| Current smoker | 47 (13.1)a | 38 (16.5) | 51 (12.2)c | 984 (39.9) | 1231 (27.3)g | 204 (14.2)h |
| BMI (median (IQR)) | 22.3 (20.8–24.2)b | 26.0 (24.0–29.0) | 26.3 (24.2–28.6)d | 24.6 (22.0–28.0)f | 26.2 (23.8–28.9)g | 26.4 (24.2–29.0) |
| TSH (median (IQR)) | 2.09 (1.59–2.79) | 1.76 (1.27–2.34) | 2.13 (1.54–2.89) | 2.07 (1.47–2.80) | 1.73 (1.22–2.44) | 1.76 (1.27–2.51) |
| fT4 (mean (SD)) | 16.4 (2.1) | 15.8 (1.8) | 15.6 (1.9) | 15.6 (2.0) | 15.6 (1.9) | 15.7 (1.8) |
| History of diabetes mellitus | 0 (0.0) | 3 (1.3) | 20 (6.0)e | 103 (4.2) | 471 (10.4) | 149 (10.4)i |
| Lipid-lowering medication use | 0 (0.0) | 8 (3.5) | 55 (16.6)e | 184 (7.5) | 2248 (49.8) | 199 (14.7)j |
| History of thyroid disease | 0 (0.0) | N.A. | N.A. | 62 (2.5) | N.A. | 111 (7.7) |
| Thyroid medication use | 0 (0.0) | 3 (1.3) | 7 (2.1)e | 34 (1.4) | 113 (2.5) | 28 (1.9) |
| Medication use influencing the thyroid gland | 0 (0.0) | N.A. | 1 (0.3)e | 3 (0.1) | 12 (0.3) | N.A. |
Results are shown as n (%) unless indicated otherwise. Abbreviations: 500 FG 500 Functional Genomics Study, GARP the Genetics, Arthrosis and Progression study, LLS the Leiden Longevity Study, NESDA the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety, PROSPER PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk, RS the Rotterdam Study, BMI body mass index, TSH thyroid stimulating hormone, fT4 free thyroxin, N.A. not available
aInformation on 360 individuals
bInformation on 356 individuals
cInformation on 410 individuals
dInformation on 407 individuals
eInformation on 331 individuals
fInformation on 2465 individuals
gInformation on 4511 individuals
hInformation on 1435 individuals
iInformation on 1438 individuals
jInformation on 1352 individuals
Fig. 1First stage associations between standardized TSH and fT4 within the reference range and 161 Nightingale platform metabolomic markers (N = 9353). Point estimates represent the standardized change in metabolomic marker concentration per standard deviation change in TSH, adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and smoking. Red bars indicate positive associations; blue bars indicate negative associations. Hollow effect estimates were not statistically significant after correction for multiple testing (p value < 1.34 × 10−3). (1) Extreme large VLDL. (2) Very large VLDL. (3) Large VLDL. (4) Medium VLDL. (5) Small VLDL. (6) Very small VLDL. (7) IDL. (8) Large LDL. (9) Medium LDL. (10) Small LDL. (11) Very large HDL. (12) Large HDL. (13) Medium HDL. (14) Small HDL. (15) Lipoprotein particle size. (16) Cholesterol. (17) Glycerides and phospholipids. (18) Apolipoproteins. (19) Fatty acids. (20) Glycolysis-related metabolites. (21) Amino acids. (22) Branched-chain amino acids. (23) Aromatic amino acids. (24) Ketone bodies. (25) Fluid balance. (26) Inflammation. HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; VLDL, very-low density lipoprotein
Fig. 2Second stage associations between TSH and 52 metabolomic markers using multivariable and Mendelian randomization analyses on Nightingale platform and multivariable analysis on Bruker platform. Point estimates represent the standardized change in metabolomic marker concentration per standard deviation change in TSH; error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and smoking, Mendelian randomization analyses are inverse variance-weighted (IVW) estimate. Hollow effect estimates refer to associations with p value > 0.05
Fig. 3Associations between genetically determined standardized TSH and fT4 within the reference range and coronary artery disease (91,810 CAD cases and 656,091 controls of European ancestry). Odds ratios (ORs) shown (per 1 s.d. increase in TSH/fT4 concentration) are inverse variance-weighted (IVW) estimate, MR Egger, and weighted-median estimator; error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals