Why concerns about vitamin D deficiency should not lead to over testing and overtreatment

Factors Associated with Potentially Inappropriate Screening for Vitamin D Deficiency among Women in Medically Underserved Regions of West Texas

Testing for vitamin D deficiency (VDD) has been on the increase due to its association with several diseases. However, inappropriate testing for VDD, defined as screening for VDD among individuals with a low risk, has been reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and factors associated with potentially inappropriate screening for VDD among medically underserved populations in West Texas. Data were from 21,407 women who were hospitalized from 2016 to 2018 at a large regional health system. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The median age of patients was 40 years. While the proportion of patients tested for VDD reduced from 8.9% to 7.6% (p = 0.013) from 2016 to 2018, the prevalence of inappropriate testing increased from 32.3% to 46.8% (p < 0.001), with the 3-year prevalence of VDD being 27.6%. White race (OR = 2.71, CI: 1.95-3.78), an age ≥ 65 years (OR = 3.07, CI: 2.05-4.59), the use of public-sponsored insurance (OR = 1.62, CI: 1.20-2.17), cardiovascular disease (OR = 0.75, CI: 0.63-0.90), and vitamin D supplement use (OR = 7.05, CI: 5.82-8.54) were associated with inappropriate testing for VDD. In this study, an increasing prevalence of potentially inappropriate testing for VDD was observed. Sociodemographic and health-related conditions were associated with potentially inappropriate testing for VDD.

Conflict of Interests in the Scientific Production on Vitamin D and COVID-19: A Scoping Review

The use of scientific evidence to support the process of formulating and implementing public policies might be biased by studies funded by the pharmaceutical and food industry, which more often than not meet corporate interests. This review aimed to analyze the occurrence of conflict of interest (COI) in academic production regarding vitamin D and COVID-19, considering the facility offered during the pandemic for academic publications of heterogeneous quality. A scoping review of observational studies published in Medline, Lilacs, and Google Scholar databases was carried out. The selected studies were published between December 2019 and August 2021, focused on the relationship between vitamin D and prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in non-institutionalized individuals, with no language restrictions. Twenty-nine studies met eligibility criteria. COI was disclosed in five papers and further identified by review authors in eight other papers, meaning COI was present in thirteen papers (44.8%). Studies were funded by companies in the diagnostics, pharmaceutical and food sectors. Conclusions favorable to vitamin D supplementation were more prevalent in papers where COI was identified (9/13, 69.2%) than among papers where COI was not found (4/16, 25.0%). Omissions of disclosure of COI, funding source, and sponsor functions were observed. The identification of possible corporate political activities in scientific papers about vitamin D published during the COVID-19 pandemic signals a need for greater transparency and guideline development on the prevention of COI in scientific production.