@article {Butler-Laporte2020.09.08.20190975, author = {Guillaume Butler-Laporte and Tomoko Nakanishi and Vincent Mooser and David R. Morrison and Tala Abdullah and Olumide Adeleye and Noor Mamlouk and Nofar Kimchi and Zaman Afrasiabi and Nardin Rezk and Annarita Giliberti and Alessandra Renieri and Yiheng Chen and Sirui Zhou and Vincenzo Forgetta and J Brent Richards}, title = {Vitamin D and COVID-19 susceptibility and severity in the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative: A Mendelian randomization study}, elocation-id = {2020.09.08.20190975}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1101/2020.09.08.20190975}, publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press}, abstract = {Background Increased vitamin D levels, as reflected by 25OHD measurements, have been proposed to protect against COVID-19 disease based on in-vitro, observational, and ecological studies. However, vitamin D levels are associated with many confounding variables and thus associations described to date may not be causal. Vitamin D Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have provided results that are concordant with large-scale vitamin D randomized trials. Here, we used two-sample MR to assess evidence supporting a causal effect of circulating 25OHD levels on COVID-19 susceptibility and severity.Methods and findings Genetic variants strongly associated with 25OHD levels in a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 443,734 participants of European ancestry (including 401,460 from the UK Biobank) were used as instrumental variables. GWASs of COVID-19 susceptibility, hospitalization, and severe disease from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative were used as outcome GWASs. These included up to 14,134 individuals with COVID-19, and 1,284,876 without COVID-19, from 11 countries. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was determined by laboratory testing or medical chart review. Population controls without COVID-19 were also included in the control groups for all outcomes, including hospitalization and severe disease. Analyses were restricted to individuals of European descent when possible. Using inverse-weighted MR, genetically increased 25OHD levels by one standard deviation on the logarithmic scale had no significant association with COVID-19 susceptibility (OR = 0.97; 95\% CI: 0.95, 1.10; P=0.61), hospitalization (OR = 1.11; 95\% CI: 0.91, 1.35; P=0.30), and severe disease (OR = 0.93; 95\% CI: 0.73, 1.17; P=0.53). We used an additional 6 meta-analytic methods, as well as sensitivity analyses after removal of variants at risk of horizontal pleiotropy and obtained similar results. These results may be limited by weak instrument bias in some analyses. Further, our results do not apply to individuals with vitamin D deficiency.Conclusion In this two-sample MR study, we did not observe evidence to support an association between 25OHD levels and COVID-19 susceptibility, severity, or hospitalization. Hence, vitamin D supplementation as a means of protecting against worsened COVID-19 outcomes is not supported by genetic evidence. Other therapeutic or preventative avenues should be given higher priority for COVID-19 randomized controlled trials.Author SummaryWhy was this study done?- Vitamin D levels have been associated with COVID-19 outcomes in multiple observational studies, though confounders are likely to bias these associations.- By using genetic instruments which limit such confounding, Mendelian randomization studies have consistently obtained results concordant with vitamin D supplementation randomized trials. This provides rationale to undertake vitamin D Mendelian randomization studies for COVID-19 outcomes.What did the researchers do and find?- We used the genetic variants obtained from the largest consortium of COVID-19 cases and controls, and the largest study on genetic determinants of vitamin D levels.- We used Mendelian randomization to estimate the effect of increased vitamin D on COVID-19 outcomes, while limiting confounding.- In multiple analyses, our results consistently showed no evidence for an association between genetically predicted vitamin D levels and COVID-19 susceptibility, hospitalization, or severe disease.What do these findings mean?- Using Mendelian randomization to reduce confounding that has traditionally biased vitamin D observational studies, we did not find evidence that vitamin D supplementation in the general population would improve COVID-19 outcomes- These findings, together with recent randomized controlled trial data, suggest that other therapies should be prioritized for COVID-19 trials.Competing Interest StatementJBR has served as an advisor to GlaxoSmithKline and Deerfield Capital. These agencies had no role in the design, implementation or interpretation of this study.Funding StatementThe Richards research group is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR: 365825; 409511), the Lady Davis Institute of the Jewish General Hospital, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the NIH Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Genome Quebec, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Fonds de Recherche Quebec Sante (FRQS). GBL is supported by the CIHR, and a joint scholarship from the FRQS and Quebec{\textquoteright}s Ministry of Health and Social Services. TN is supported by Research Fellowships of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for Young Scientists and JSPS Overseas Challenge Program for Young Researchers. JBR is supported by a FRQS Clinical Research Scholarship. Support from Calcul Quebec and Compute Canada is acknowledged. TwinsUK is funded by the Welcome Trust, Medical Research Council, European Union, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded BioResource, Clinical Research Facility and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy{\textquoteright}s and St Thomas{\textquoteright} NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King{\textquoteright}s College London. VM is supported by the Canada Excellence Research Chair Program. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Each cohort included in this study received their respective institutional research ethics board approval to enroll patients. All information used for this study are publicly available as deidentified GWAS summary statistics.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesCovid-19 outcome GWAS summary statistics are freely available for download directly through the Covid-19 HGI website (https://www.covid19hg.org/results/). The October 20th data freeze (v4) summary statistics were used for our study. https://www.covid19hg.org/}, URL = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/07/2020.09.08.20190975}, eprint = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/07/2020.09.08.20190975.full.pdf}, journal = {medRxiv} }