Vitamin D status and risk of cardiovascular events

Lessons learned via systematic review and meta-analysis

Seth I. Sokol, Pansy Tsang, Vikas Aggarwal, Michal L. Melamed, V. S. Srinivas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Accumulating data linking hypovitaminosis D to cardiovascular (CV) events has contributed to large increases in vitamin D testing and supplementation. To evaluate the merits of this practice, we conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis providing a framework for interpreting the literature associating hypovitaminosis D with increased CV events. Prospective studies were identified by search of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to January 2010, restricted to English language publications. Two authors independently extracted data and graded study quality. Pooled relative risks (RR) were calculated using a random effects model. Ten studies met criteria for review and 7 were included in meta-analysis. Pooled RR for CV events using FAIR and GOOD quality studies was 1.67 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.28) during an average follow-up of 11.8 years. There was evidence of significant heterogeneity across studies (Q statistics = 16.6, P = 0.01, I = 63.8%), which was eliminated after omitting 2 studies identified by sensitivity analysis (RR, 1.34 [1.08-1.67]; P for heterogeneity =0.33). When restricting analysis to GOOD quality studies (RR, 1.27 [1.04-1.56]), no significant heterogeneity was found (P = 0.602). Systematic review identified significant shortcomings in the literature, including variability in defining vitamin D status, seasonal adjustments, defining and determining CV outcomes, and the use of baseline vitamin D levels. In conclusion, a modest increased risk of CV events associated with hypovitaminosis D is tempered by significant limitations within the current literature. These findings underscore the importance of critical appraisal of the literature, looking beyond reported risk estimates before translating results into clinical practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)192-201
Number of pages10
JournalCardiology in Review
Volume19
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2011

Fingerprint

Vitamin D
Meta-Analysis
MEDLINE
Publications
Language
Prospective Studies
Confidence Intervals

Keywords

  • cardiovascular events
  • meta-analysis
  • systematic review
  • vitamin D

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Vitamin D status and risk of cardiovascular events : Lessons learned via systematic review and meta-analysis. / Sokol, Seth I.; Tsang, Pansy; Aggarwal, Vikas; Melamed, Michal L.; Srinivas, V. S.

In: Cardiology in Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, 07.2011, p. 192-201.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sokol, Seth I. ; Tsang, Pansy ; Aggarwal, Vikas ; Melamed, Michal L. ; Srinivas, V. S. / Vitamin D status and risk of cardiovascular events : Lessons learned via systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Cardiology in Review. 2011 ; Vol. 19, No. 4. pp. 192-201.
@article{059ab37a4f7d42d4be3eea07b745459f,
title = "Vitamin D status and risk of cardiovascular events: Lessons learned via systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Accumulating data linking hypovitaminosis D to cardiovascular (CV) events has contributed to large increases in vitamin D testing and supplementation. To evaluate the merits of this practice, we conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis providing a framework for interpreting the literature associating hypovitaminosis D with increased CV events. Prospective studies were identified by search of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to January 2010, restricted to English language publications. Two authors independently extracted data and graded study quality. Pooled relative risks (RR) were calculated using a random effects model. Ten studies met criteria for review and 7 were included in meta-analysis. Pooled RR for CV events using FAIR and GOOD quality studies was 1.67 (95{\%} confidence interval, 1.23-2.28) during an average follow-up of 11.8 years. There was evidence of significant heterogeneity across studies (Q statistics = 16.6, P = 0.01, I = 63.8{\%}), which was eliminated after omitting 2 studies identified by sensitivity analysis (RR, 1.34 [1.08-1.67]; P for heterogeneity =0.33). When restricting analysis to GOOD quality studies (RR, 1.27 [1.04-1.56]), no significant heterogeneity was found (P = 0.602). Systematic review identified significant shortcomings in the literature, including variability in defining vitamin D status, seasonal adjustments, defining and determining CV outcomes, and the use of baseline vitamin D levels. In conclusion, a modest increased risk of CV events associated with hypovitaminosis D is tempered by significant limitations within the current literature. These findings underscore the importance of critical appraisal of the literature, looking beyond reported risk estimates before translating results into clinical practice.",
keywords = "cardiovascular events, meta-analysis, systematic review, vitamin D",
author = "Sokol, {Seth I.} and Pansy Tsang and Vikas Aggarwal and Melamed, {Michal L.} and Srinivas, {V. S.}",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1097/CRD.0b013e31821da9a5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "192--201",
journal = "Cardiology in Review",
issn = "1061-5377",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Vitamin D status and risk of cardiovascular events

T2 - Lessons learned via systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Sokol, Seth I.

AU - Tsang, Pansy

AU - Aggarwal, Vikas

AU - Melamed, Michal L.

AU - Srinivas, V. S.

PY - 2011/7

Y1 - 2011/7

N2 - Accumulating data linking hypovitaminosis D to cardiovascular (CV) events has contributed to large increases in vitamin D testing and supplementation. To evaluate the merits of this practice, we conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis providing a framework for interpreting the literature associating hypovitaminosis D with increased CV events. Prospective studies were identified by search of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to January 2010, restricted to English language publications. Two authors independently extracted data and graded study quality. Pooled relative risks (RR) were calculated using a random effects model. Ten studies met criteria for review and 7 were included in meta-analysis. Pooled RR for CV events using FAIR and GOOD quality studies was 1.67 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.28) during an average follow-up of 11.8 years. There was evidence of significant heterogeneity across studies (Q statistics = 16.6, P = 0.01, I = 63.8%), which was eliminated after omitting 2 studies identified by sensitivity analysis (RR, 1.34 [1.08-1.67]; P for heterogeneity =0.33). When restricting analysis to GOOD quality studies (RR, 1.27 [1.04-1.56]), no significant heterogeneity was found (P = 0.602). Systematic review identified significant shortcomings in the literature, including variability in defining vitamin D status, seasonal adjustments, defining and determining CV outcomes, and the use of baseline vitamin D levels. In conclusion, a modest increased risk of CV events associated with hypovitaminosis D is tempered by significant limitations within the current literature. These findings underscore the importance of critical appraisal of the literature, looking beyond reported risk estimates before translating results into clinical practice.

AB - Accumulating data linking hypovitaminosis D to cardiovascular (CV) events has contributed to large increases in vitamin D testing and supplementation. To evaluate the merits of this practice, we conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis providing a framework for interpreting the literature associating hypovitaminosis D with increased CV events. Prospective studies were identified by search of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to January 2010, restricted to English language publications. Two authors independently extracted data and graded study quality. Pooled relative risks (RR) were calculated using a random effects model. Ten studies met criteria for review and 7 were included in meta-analysis. Pooled RR for CV events using FAIR and GOOD quality studies was 1.67 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.28) during an average follow-up of 11.8 years. There was evidence of significant heterogeneity across studies (Q statistics = 16.6, P = 0.01, I = 63.8%), which was eliminated after omitting 2 studies identified by sensitivity analysis (RR, 1.34 [1.08-1.67]; P for heterogeneity =0.33). When restricting analysis to GOOD quality studies (RR, 1.27 [1.04-1.56]), no significant heterogeneity was found (P = 0.602). Systematic review identified significant shortcomings in the literature, including variability in defining vitamin D status, seasonal adjustments, defining and determining CV outcomes, and the use of baseline vitamin D levels. In conclusion, a modest increased risk of CV events associated with hypovitaminosis D is tempered by significant limitations within the current literature. These findings underscore the importance of critical appraisal of the literature, looking beyond reported risk estimates before translating results into clinical practice.

KW - cardiovascular events

KW - meta-analysis

KW - systematic review

KW - vitamin D

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959220177&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79959220177&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/CRD.0b013e31821da9a5

DO - 10.1097/CRD.0b013e31821da9a5

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 192

EP - 201

JO - Cardiology in Review

JF - Cardiology in Review

SN - 1061-5377

IS - 4

ER -