4.6 Review

Vitamin D in early life and later risk of multiple sclerosis-A systematic review, meta-analysis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 14, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221645

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Programme Commission on Health, Food, and Welfare under the Danish Council for Strategic research [0603-00453B]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study examined results from previous studies of early life vitamin D exposure and risk of MS in adulthood, including studies on season or month of birth and of migration. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science databases as well as checking references cited in articles. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the AMSTAR score. Twenty-eight studies were selected for analysis. Of these, six population studies investigated early life vitamin D exposure and risk of MS, and three found inverse while the remaining found no associations. A consistent seasonal tendency for MS seemed evident from 11/15 studies, finding a reduced occurrence of MS for Northern hemisphere children who were born late autumn, and late fall for children born in the Southern hemisphere. This was also confirmed by pooled analysis of 6/15 studies. Results of the migration studies showed an increased risk of MS if migration from high to low-MS-risk areas had occurred after age 15 years, while risk of MS was reduced for those migrating earlier in life (<15years). A similar, but inverse risk pattern was observed among migrants from low to high-MS-risk areas. One study found an increased risk of MS in the second generation of migrants when migrating from low to high-MS-risk areas. An association between early life vitamin D and later risk of MS seems possible, however evidence is still insufficient to conclude that low vitamin D exposure in early life increases the risk of MS in adulthood.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available