Finds no effect of vitamin D on celiac disease risk in European ancestry, suggesting alternative preventive approaches are needed.
While prior research has indicated a possible association between serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and celiac disease (CD), key questions remain unresolved without clear consensus. To assess association, we perform Mendelian randomization and a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing studies in European ancestry. A systematic review and meta-analysis performed by using both standardized mean difference and a Bayesian framework. Moreover, Mendelian randomization conducted via Generalized Summary-data-based Mendelian randomization (GSMR) and two-sample Mendelian randomization. Data on serum 25(OH)D levels were obtained from the Medical Research Council’s Integrative Epidemiology Unit (GWAS ID: ebi-a-GCST90000618; N = 4,96,946), while data on CD included 11,812 cases and 229 controls (GWAS ID: ebi-a-GCST005523). The main method used was the random inverse variance weighted (IVW) approach, supplemented by various sensitivity analyses to strengthen the findings. Both the meta-analysis and Mendelian randomization analysis indicate that vitamin D levels have no effect on the risk of developing celiac disease. Using a random-effects model, the standardized mean difference was calculated as −0.79 (95% CI: −2.02, 0.45), which was not statistically significant ( T Statistic =−1.77, P = .152). The Bayesian meta-analysis reinforced these results, showing a point estimate of −0.6 with a wide 95% credible interval of (−13.6, 13.2), highlighting substantial uncertainty regarding the true effect size. The GSMR also found no significant association between 25(OH)D levels and CD (OR = 0.988; 95% CI: 0.853–1.145; P = .878). This null finding was corroborated by two-sample Mendelian randomization (OR IVW = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.49–1.05, P = .091). The Steiger test confirmed the absence of a directional relationship, and cluster analysis revealed no heterogeneity patterns (OR IVW = 0.374, 95% CI: 0.238–0.588). These findings were consistent across multiple MR methods, including penalized MR, robust MR, penalized robust MR, MR-Egger (both t-distribution and radial approaches), SIMEX, MR-PRESSO, Maximum likelihood, MR-Mix, RAPS, MR-Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator, debiased IVW, and contamination mixture models. By questioning the presumed direct connection between 25(OH)D and CD, it appears that 25(OH)D may not be a primary contributor to CD, which could impact future prevention approaches and alter clinical guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akbarzadeh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: