4.0 Article

Vitamin D intake is inversely associated with rheumatoid arthritis - Results from the Iowa Women's Health Study

Journal

ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM
Volume 50, Issue 1, Pages 72-77

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/art.11434

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01-CA-39741] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. Vitamin D is a potent regulator of calcium homeostasis and may have immunomodulatory effects. The influence of vitamin D on human autoimmune disease has not been well defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of dietary and supplemental vitamin D intake with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) incidence. Methods. We analyzed data from a prospective cohort study of 29,368 women of ages 55-69 years without a history of RA at study baseline in 1986. Diet was ascertained using a self-administered, 127-item validated food frequency questionnaire that included supplemental vitamin D use. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for potential confounders. Results. Through 11 years of followup, 152 cases of RA were validated against medical records. Greater intake (highest versus lowest tertile) of vitamin D was inversely associated with risk of RA (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44-1.00, P for trend = 0.05). Inverse associations were apparent for both dietary (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46-1.14, P for trend = 0.16) and supplemental (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43-1.00, P for trend = 0.03) vitamin D. No individual food item high in vitamin D content and/or calcium was strongly associated with RA risk, but a composite measure of milk products was suggestive of an inverse association with risk of RA (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42-1.01, P for trend = 0.06). Conclusion. Greater intake of vitamin D may be associated with a lower risk of RA in older women, although this finding is hypothesis generating.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available