Investigating the relationship of serum vitamin D levels with blood pressure and hypertension risk in The HUNT Study: Using traditional observational and Mendelian randomization approaches
Jiang, L.; Sun, Y.-Q.; Denos, M.; Brumptom, B. M.; Chen, Y.; Malmo, V.; Sanderson, E.; Mai, X.-M. J. X. m.
Show abstract
BackgroundLimited studies have triangulated the relationship between serum vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels and systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) or hypertension risk using traditional observational and Mendelian randomization (MR) approaches. Methods and resultsData were obtained from the Norwegian Trondelag Health Study (HUNT). A cross-sectional study was performed among 5854 participants from HUNT2. Among them, 3592 participants were followed over 11 years for a prospective analysis. Furthermore, a one-sample MR was conducted with 86,324 participants from HUNT. An externally weighted genetic risk score based on 19 genetic variants for 25(OH)D was used as instrument and the Wald ratio method was applied to evaluate causal associations. Additionally, two-sample MR were performed using updated publicly available data. Our cross-sectional analyses showed a 25 nmol/L increase in 25(OH)D was associated with a 1.73 mmHg decrease in SBP (95 % CI -2.46 to -1.01), a 0.91 mmHg decrease in DBP (95% CI - 1.35 to -0.47) and 19% lower prevalence of hypertension (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90) after adjusting for important confounders. However, these associations disappeared in prospective analyses. Both one-sample and two-sample MR results suggested no causal associations. ConclusionsCross-sectional findings of inverse associations between serum 25(OH)D levels and blood pressure or hypertension were not supported by results from the prospective and MR analyses, suggesting no causal links. Clinical Perspective What Is New?O_LIWe triangulated the potential relationships of serum 25(OH)D with blood pressure and hypertension using several observational methods such as cross-sectional, prospective cohort, one-sample and two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approaches. C_LI What Are the Clinical Implications?O_LIThe consistency across the prospective, one-sample MR and two-sample MR analyses enhanced the robustness of the findings of no causal association between vitamin D and blood pressure or hypertension. C_LIO_LIClinicians should be cautious when recommending vitamin D supplementation to the general population for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Genome-Wide Interaction Analysis with DASH Diet Score Identified Novel Loci for Systolic Blood Pressure 93%
- Identification of the molecular components of enhancer-mediated gene expression variation in multiple tissues regulating blood pressure 93%
- Projected Impact of Nonpharmacologic Management of Stage 1 Hypertension Among Lower-Risk US Adults 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating a possible causal relationship between maternal serum urate concentrations and offspring birthweight: A Mendelian randomization study 95%
- Cohort Profile Update: The HUNT Study, Norway 94%
- Genetic evidence for causal relationships between age at natural menopause and the risk of aging-associated adverse health outcomes 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Genetic correlates of vitamin D-binding protein and 25 hydroxyvitamin D in neonatal dried blood spots 95%
- Within-family studies for Mendelian randomization: avoiding dynastic, assortative mating, and population stratification biases 94%
- Epigenome-wide association meta-analysis of DNA methylation with coffee and tea consumption 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Physical activity and favourable adiposity genetic liability reduce the risk of hypertension among high body mass individuals 96%
- Differences between brachial and aortic blood pressure in adolescence and their impact on classification of hypertension 91%
- Association of urinary peptides with hypertension 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.