Shen · Medicine 2026 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=185,191 participants across 21 studies

The association of serum levels of vitamin D with leucocyte telomere length, as a marker of biological aging: A meta-analysis.

Cited 0 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

PubMed 41650046 · doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000044487 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

Authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 studies totaling 185,191 participants identified through PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library searches through February 2025. The analysis evaluated the association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations and leukocyte telomere length (LTL) using random-effects models, reporting standardized beta (β) coefficients with 95% confidence intervals.

What was found

Serum 25(OH)D levels were weakly positively associated with LTL overall (β = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02-0.06), with substantial heterogeneity across studies (I² = 89.1%, P ≤ 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed significant positive associations in: - Adults (β = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.03-0.06) - Women (β = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.01-0.08) - Individuals with vitamin D deficiency (β = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.01-0.43) - Studies that adjusted for covariates (β = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.01-0.08) No significant associations were found in men, children, individuals with serum 25(OH)D ≥ 30 ng/mL, or studies without covariate adjustments. Relationships were not influenced by the method of telomere assessment, body mass index, smoking status, or sample size.

Why it matters

This review synthesizes population-level data linking higher vitamin D status to longer leukocyte telomeres, highlighting that any potential association is largely concentrated in deficient states and specific demographic subgroups.

Limits

The underlying studies are observational, precluding causal inference. Between-study heterogeneity was very high (I² = 89.1%). The overall effect size is very modest (β = 0.04), and the abstract does not report individual study designs (cross-sectional versus longitudinal), potential residual confounders, or interventional validation.

Cited by