Causal Association of Serum Vitamin D Levels with Urolithiasis: a Bidirectional Two-sample Mendelian Randomization Study

Overview

Journal Eur J Nutr

Specialty Nutritional Sciences

Date 2024 Nov 30

PMID 39614876

Authors

Qi-Feng Zhang

He-Zhen Zhang

Sheng Wang

Li-Yuan Zeng

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: In light of inconsistent evidence from previous observational studies regarding the correlation between serum vitamin D levels and urolithiasis, this study aimed to investigate the genome-wide causal association between genetically predicted serum 25(OH)D levels and urolithiasis using the Mendelian randomization (MR) approach.

Methods: In this study, we utilized genome-wide association studies (GWAS) summary statistics from the UK Biobank and SUNLIGHT consortium for serum vitamin D levels, as well as urolithiasis data from FinnGen. We employed bidirectional two-sample MR analysis to evaluate potential causal relationships. The primary MR analysis relied on the inverse variance weighted (IVW) method, supplemented by MR-Egger, weighted median, and weighted mode approaches. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to ensure result robustness, including Cochran's Q test, MR-Egger intercept test, leave-one-out tests, and MR pleiotropy residual sum and outlier (MR-PRESSO) test.

Results: The MR analysis indicated no significant causal effects of serum 25(OH)D levels on urolithiasis [IVW method: (kidney and ureteral stones: OR = 1.134;95% CI, 0.953 to 1.350, p = 0.155; lower urinary tract stones: OR = 1.158; 95% CI, 0.806 to 1.666, p = 0.428)]. However, according to the IVW results, genetically predicted kidney and ureteral stones were associated with decreased serum 25(OH)D levels (beta = -0.025; 95% CI, -0.048 to -0.003; p = 0.028), while they did not indicate a causal effect of lower urinary tract stones on serum 25(OH)D levels (beta = -0.002; 95% CI, -0.013 to -0.008; p = 0.662). A sensitivity analysis suggested the robustness of these causal associations.

Conclusions: Our MR study did not provide evidence supporting a causal association between serum 25(OH)D levels and urolithiasis among individuals of European descent. However, there might exist a negative causal association between kidney and ureteral stones and serum 25(OH)D levels.

References

Chewcharat A, Curhan G . Trends in the prevalence of kidney stones in the United States from 2007 to 2016. Urolithiasis. 2020; 49(1):27-39. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-020-01210-w. View

Heers H, Stay D, Wiesmann T, Hofmann R . Urolithiasis in Germany: Trends from the National DRG Database. Urol Int. 2021; 106(6):589-595. PMC: 9248299. DOI: 10.1159/000520372. View

Tan S, Yuan D, Su H, Chen W, Zhu S, Yan B . Prevalence of urolithiasis in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2023; 133(1):34-43. DOI: 10.1111/bju.16179. View

Basiri A, Kashi A, Omran H, Borumandnia N, Golshan S, Narouie B . National Lifetime Prevalence and Demographic Factors of Urolithiasis in Iran. Urol J. 2023; 20(2):102-108. DOI: 10.22037/uj.v20i.7576. View

Qian X, Wan J, Xu J, Liu C, Zhong M, Zhang J . Epidemiological Trends of Urolithiasis at the Global, Regional, and National Levels: A Population-Based Study. Int J Clin Pract. 2022; 2022:6807203. PMC: 9159214. DOI: 10.1155/2022/6807203. View

Xu J, Li C, Xia Q, Lu J, Wan Z, Hu L . Sex disparities and the risk of urolithiasis: a large cross-sectional study. Ann Med. 2022; 54(1):1627-1635. PMC: 9196832. DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2022.2085882. View

Zhang L, Zhang X, Pu Y, Zhang Y, Fan J . Global, Regional, and National Burden of Urolithiasis from 1990 to 2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Clin Epidemiol. 2022; 14:971-983. PMC: 9391934. DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S370591. View

Howles S, Thakker R . Genetics of kidney stone disease. Nat Rev Urol. 2020; 17(7):407-421. DOI: 10.1038/s41585-020-0332-x. View

Siener R, Herwig H, Rudy J, Schaefer R, Lossin P, Hesse A . Urinary stone composition in Germany: results from 45,783 stone analyses. World J Urol. 2022; 40(7):1813-1820. PMC: 9236976. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04060-w. View

10.

Zhang S, Huang Y, Wu W, He Z, Ou L, Tiselius H . Trends in urinary stone composition in 23,182 stone analyses from 2011 to 2019: a high-volume center study in China. World J Urol. 2021; 39(9):3599-3605. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03680-y. View

11.

Katz J, Soodana-Prakash N, Jain A, Parmar M, Smith N, Kryvenko O . Influence of Age and Geography on Chemical Composition of 98043 Urinary Stones from the USA. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021; 34:19-26. PMC: 8655393. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.09.011. View

12.

Ferraro P, Taylor E, Gambaro G, Curhan G . Dietary and Lifestyle Risk Factors Associated with Incident Kidney Stones in Men and Women. J Urol. 2017; 198(4):858-863. PMC: 5599330. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.124. View

13.

Malihi Z, Wu Z, Stewart A, Lawes C, Scragg R . Hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, and kidney stones in long-term studies of vitamin D supplementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016; 104(4):1039-1051. DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.116.134981. View

14.

Davies N, Holmes M, Davey Smith G . Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: a guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians. BMJ. 2018; 362:k601. PMC: 6041728. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k601. View

15.

Skrivankova V, Richmond R, Woolf B, Yarmolinsky J, Davies N, Swanson S . Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization: The STROBE-MR Statement. JAMA. 2021; 326(16):1614-1621. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.18236. View

16.

Revez J, Lin T, Qiao Z, Xue A, Holtz Y, Zhu Z . Genome-wide association study identifies 143 loci associated with 25 hydroxyvitamin D concentration. Nat Commun. 2020; 11(1):1647. PMC: 7118120. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-15421-7. View

17.

Jiang X, OReilly P, Aschard H, Hsu Y, Richards J, Dupuis J . Genome-wide association study in 79,366 European-ancestry individuals informs the genetic architecture of 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Nat Commun. 2018; 9(1):260. PMC: 5772647. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02662-2. View

18.

Emdin C, Khera A, Kathiresan S . Mendelian Randomization. JAMA. 2017; 318(19):1925-1926. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.17219. View

19.

Burgess S, Thompson S . Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2011; 40(3):755-64. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyr036. View

20.

Verbanck M, Chen C, Neale B, Do R . Detection of widespread horizontal pleiotropy in causal relationships inferred from Mendelian randomization between complex traits and diseases. Nat Genet. 2018; 50(5):693-698. PMC: 6083837. DOI: 10.1038/s41588-018-0099-7. View