High-dose oral vitamin D supplementation and mortality in people aged 65-84 years: the VIDAL cluster feasibility RCT of open versus double-blind individual randomisation

Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies demonstrate associations between serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and a variety of common disorders, including musculoskeletal, metabolic, cardiovascular, malignant, autoimmune, and infectious diseases. Although a causal link between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and many disorders has not been clearly established, these associations have led to widespread supplementation with vitamin D and increased laboratory testing for 25(OH)D in the general population. The benefit-risk ratio of this increase in vitamin D use is not clear, and the optimal vitamin D intake and the role of testing for 25(OH)D for disease prevention remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To develop clinical guidelines for the use of vitamin D (cholecalciferol [vitamin D3] or ergocalciferol [vitamin D2]) to lower the risk of disease in individuals without established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25(OH)D testing.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, along with experts in guideline methodology and systematic literature review, identified and prioritized 14 clinically relevant questions related to the use of vitamin D and 25(OH)D testing to lower the risk of disease. The panel prioritized randomized placebo-controlled trials in general populations (without an established indication for vitamin D treatment or 25[OH]D testing), evaluating the effects of empiric vitamin D administration throughout the lifespan, as well as in select conditions (pregnancy and prediabetes). The panel defined "empiric supplementation" as vitamin D intake that (a) exceeds the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) and (b) is implemented without testing for 25(OH)D. Systematic reviews queried electronic databases for publications related to these 14 clinical questions. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and guide recommendations. The approach incorporated perspectives from a patient representative and considered patient values, costs and resources required, acceptability and feasibility, and impact on health equity of the proposed recommendations. The process to develop this clinical guideline did not use a risk assessment framework and was not designed to replace current DRI for vitamin D.

RESULTS

The panel suggests empiric vitamin D supplementation for children and adolescents aged 1 to 18 years to prevent nutritional rickets and because of its potential to lower the risk of respiratory tract infections; for those aged 75 years and older because of its potential to lower the risk of mortality; for those who are pregnant because of its potential to lower the risk of preeclampsia, intra-uterine mortality, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and neonatal mortality; and for those with high-risk prediabetes because of its potential to reduce progression to diabetes. Because the vitamin D doses in the included clinical trials varied considerably and many trial participants were allowed to continue their own vitamin D-containing supplements, the optimal doses for empiric vitamin D supplementation remain unclear for the populations considered. For nonpregnant people older than 50 years for whom vitamin D is indicated, the panel suggests supplementation via daily administration of vitamin D, rather than intermittent use of high doses. The panel suggests against empiric vitamin D supplementation above the current DRI to lower the risk of disease in healthy adults younger than 75 years. No clinical trial evidence was found to support routine screening for 25(OH)D in the general population, nor in those with obesity or dark complexion, and there was no clear evidence defining the optimal target level of 25(OH)D required for disease prevention in the populations considered; thus, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in all populations considered. The panel judged that, in most situations, empiric vitamin D supplementation is inexpensive, feasible, acceptable to both healthy individuals and health care professionals, and has no negative effect on health equity.

CONCLUSION

The panel suggests empiric vitamin D for those aged 1 to 18 years and adults over 75 years of age, those who are pregnant, and those with high-risk prediabetes. Due to the scarcity of natural food sources rich in vitamin D, empiric supplementation can be achieved through a combination of fortified foods and supplements that contain vitamin D. Based on the absence of supportive clinical trial evidence, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in the absence of established indications. These recommendations are not meant to replace the current DRIs for vitamin D, nor do they apply to people with established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25(OH)D testing. Further research is needed to determine optimal 25(OH)D levels for specific health benefits.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines on Vitamin D

CONTEXT

Low vitamin D status is common and is associated with various common medical conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To support the development of the Endocrine Society's Clinical Practice Guideline on Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases for studies that addressed 14 clinical questions prioritized by the guideline panel. Of the 14 questions, 10 clinical questions assessed the effect of vitamin D vs no vitamin D in the general population throughout the lifespan, during pregnancy, and in adults with prediabetes; 1 question assessed dosing; and 3 questions addressed screening with serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Electronic searches yielded 37 007 citations, from which we included 151 studies. In children and adolescents, low-certainty evidence suggested reduction in respiratory tract infections with empiric vitamin D. There was no significant effect on select outcomes in healthy adults aged 19 to 74 years with variable certainty of evidence. There was a very small reduction in mortality among adults older than 75 years with high certainty of evidence. In pregnant women, low-certainty evidence suggested possible benefit on various maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes. In adults with prediabetes, moderate certainty of evidence suggested reduction in the rate of progression to diabetes. Administration of high-dose intermittent vitamin D may increase falls, compared to lower-dose daily dosing. We did not identify trials on the benefits and harms of screening with serum 25(OH)D.

CONCLUSION

The evidence summarized in this systematic review addresses the benefits and harms of vitamin D for the prevention of disease. The guideline panel considered additional information about individuals' and providers' values and preferences and other important decisional and contextual factors to develop clinical recommendations.

Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of acute respiratory infections in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) have a substantial impact on morbidity, healthcare utilization, and functional decline among older adults. Therefore, we systematically reviewed evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation in preventing ARIs in older adults.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until 1 February 2024. RCTs evaluating the use of vitamin D supplements to protect older adults from ARIs were included. Two reviewers independently screened papers, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Data were summarised as relative risks (RRs) or odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Random effects meta-analyses were used to synthesise the results. GRADE was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. All the analysis were performed with Stata version 17.

RESULTS

Twelve trials (41552 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. It showed that vitamin D supplementation probably does not reduce the incidence of ARIs (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02, I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). No significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of ARI was observed for any of the subgroups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, control treatments, dose frequency, study duration, and participants' condition. However, there was a possibility, although not statistically significant, that vitamin D may reduce the risk of ARI in patients with a baseline 25(OH)D concentration <50 nmol/L (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.04, I2 = 14.7%). Additionally, vitamin D supplements might result in little to no difference in death due to any cause, any adverse event, hypercalcinemia, and kidney stones.

CONCLUSIONS

Vitamin D supplementation among older adults probably results in little to no difference in the incidence of ARIs. However, further evidence is needed, particularly for individuals with vitamin D deficiency and populations residing in low and middle income countries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023451265).

Has a High Dose of Vitamin D3 Impacted Health Conditions in Older Adults?-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Dose 100,000 IU

BACKGROUND

Older adults are prone to vitamin D3 (VD3) deficiency, which may impair their health. A high dose of VD3 (HDVD3 = 100,000 IU) could improve their 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D] level and health outcomes. However, evidence for such a beneficial effect of HDVD3 in older adults coming from clinical trials is mixed.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on the efficacy of a single dose of 100,000 IU of VD3 in older people.

METHODS

We searched PubMed/Medline, Science Direct, and NIH's clinical trials registry for clinical studies on the effect of a single high dose of VD3 on various health outcomes in older people. We also performed a meta-analysis using the standardized mean difference to assess the effect of VD3 on its blood level. Due to expected high heterogeneity, its amount (i.e., tau2) was estimated using the DerSimonian-Laird estimator. To estimate tau2, the Q-test for heterogeneity and the I2 statistic were calculated.

RESULTS

Search results identify 13 studies that reported diverse health outcomes, such as lung and cardiovascular function, skin cancer progression, intensive care unit mortality, immune system response, and bone density. The meta-analysis showed a significant increase in 25(OH)D blood levels after treatment in 10 studies, with an average standardized mean difference of 2.60 ng/mL (95% CI: 2.07 to 3.13). Their results suggested that a single high dose of VD3 may benefit intensive care unit patients and skin cancer patients in remission. However, evidence for other beneficial health effects of HDVD3 was mixed due to high heterogeneity among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

A single high dose of VD3 may positively affect some health outcomes in older people, possibly due to its pleiotropic and immunomodulatory effects. However, the evidence needs to be more extensive and consistent, and more rigorous studies are required to confirm the benefits and safety of VD3 high doses in older patients.

Vitamin D Supplementation and Its Impact on Mortality and Cardiovascular Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 80 Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The impact of vitamin D supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality risk reduction remains unclear due to conflicting study findings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published between 1983 and 2022, that reported the effect of vitamin D supplementation in adults versus placebo or no treatment on all-cause mortality (ACM), cardiovascular mortality (CVM), non-cardiovascular mortality (non-CVM), and cardiovascular morbidities. Only studies with a follow-up period longer than one year were included. The primary outcomes were ACM and CVM. Secondary outcomes were non-CVM, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and major or extended adverse cardiovascular events. Subgroup analyses were performed according to low-, fair- and good-quality RCTs.

RESULTS

Eighty RCTs were assessed, including 82,210 participants receiving vitamin D supplementation and 80,921 receiving placebo or no treatment. The participants' mean (SD) age was 66.1 (11.2) years, and 68.6% were female. Vitamin D supplementation was associated with a lower risk of ACM (OR: 0.95 [95%CI 0.91-0.99] p = 0.013), was close to statistical significance for a lower risk of non-CVM (OR: 0.94 [95%CI 0.87-1.00] p = 0.055), and was not statistically associated with a lower risk of any cardiovascular morbi-mortality outcome. Meta-analysis of low-quality RCTs showed no association with cardiovascular or non-cardiovascular morbi-mortality outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The emerging results of our meta-analysis present evidence that vitamin D supplementation appears to decrease the risk of ACM (especially convincing in the fair- and good-quality RCTs), while not showing a decrease in the specific cardiovascular morbidity and mortality risk. Thus, we conclude that further research is warranted in this area, with well-planned and executed studies as the basis for more robust recommendations.

Association between Vitamin D Supplementation and Cancer Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

It has been questioned whether vitamin D supplements can reduce the mortality and incidence of tumors. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials with a total of 72,669 participants, vitamin D supplementation could not reduce the cancer mortality or cancer incidence. Our results suggest a reconsideration of the previous view that vitamin D supplementation could reduce overall cancer mortality is needed.

Abstract

Background: Vitamin D deficiency is related to increased cancer risk and deaths. However, whether vitamin D supplementation reduces cancer mortality remains unclear, and several randomized controlled trials yield inconsistent results. Methods: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from their inception until 28 June 2022, for randomized controlled trials investigating vitamin D supplementation. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Trials with vitamin D supplementation combined with calcium supplementation versus placebo alone and recruiting participants with cancer at baseline were excluded in the present study. Results: This study included 12 trials with a total of 72,669 participants. Vitamin D supplementation did not reduce overall cancer mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80–1.16). However, vitamin D supplementation was associated with a reduction in lung cancer mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45–0.90). Conclusions: Vitamin D supplementation could not reduce cancer mortality in this highly purified meta-analysis. Further RCTs that evaluate the association between vitamin D supplementation and total cancer mortality are still needed.

Vitamin and Mineral Supplements for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the 2 leading causes of death in the US, and vitamin and mineral supplementation has been proposed to help prevent these conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To review the benefits and harms of vitamin and mineral supplementation in healthy adults to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed (publisher-supplied records only), Cochrane Library, and Embase (January 2013 to February 1, 2022); prior reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of vitamin or mineral use among adults without cardiovascular disease or cancer and with no known vitamin or mineral deficiencies; observational cohort studies examining serious harms.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Single extraction, verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative pooling methods appropriate for rare events were used for most analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mortality, cardiovascular disease events, cancer incidence, serious harms.

RESULTS

Eighty-four studies (N=739 803) were included. In pooled analyses, multivitamin use was significantly associated with a lower incidence of any cancer (odds ratio [OR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87-0.99]; 4 RCTs [n=48 859]; absolute risk difference [ARD] range among adequately powered trials, -0.2% to -1.2%) and lung cancer (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58-0.95]; 2 RCTs [n=36 052]; ARD, 0.2%). However, the evidence for multivitamins had important limitations. Beta carotene (with or without vitamin A) was significantly associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.01-1.42]; 4 RCTs [n=94 830]; ARD range, -0.1% to 0.6%) and cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.02-1.19]; 5 RCTs [n=94 506] ARD range, -0.8% to 0.8%). Vitamin D use was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.91-1.02]; 27 RCTs [n=117 082]), cardiovascular disease (eg, composite cardiovascular disease event outcome: OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95-1.05]; 7 RCTs [n=74 925]), or cancer outcomes (eg, any cancer incidence: OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.92-1.03]; 19 RCTs [n=86 899]). Vitamin E was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.97-1.07]; 9 RCTs [n=107 772]), cardiovascular disease events (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.90-1.04]; 4 RCTs [n=62 136]), or cancer incidence (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.98-1.08]; 5 RCTs [n=76 777]). Evidence for benefit of other supplements was equivocal, minimal, or absent. Limited evidence suggested some supplements may be associated with higher risk of serious harms (hip fracture [vitamin A], hemorrhagic stroke [vitamin E], and kidney stones [vitamin C, calcium]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Vitamin and mineral supplementation was associated with little or no benefit in preventing cancer, cardiovascular disease, and death, with the exception of a small benefit for cancer incidence with multivitamin use. Beta carotene was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and other harmful outcomes in persons at high risk of lung cancer.

High-dose versus standard-dose vitamin D supplementation in older adults with COVID-19 (COVIT-TRIAL): A multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial

BACKGROUND

Vitamin D supplementation has been proposed as a treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) based on experimental data and data from small and uncontrolled observational studies. The COvid19 and VITamin d TRIAL (COVIT-TRIAL) study was conducted to test whether a single oral high dose of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) administered within 72 hours after the diagnosis of COVID-19 improves, compared to standard-dose cholecalciferol, the 14-day overall survival among at-risk older adults infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, superiority trial involved collaboration of 9 medical centers in France. Patients admitted to the hospital units or living in nursing homes adjacent to the investigator centers were eligible if they were ≥65 years, had SARS-CoV-2 infection of less than 3 days, and at least 1 COVID-19 worsening risk factor (among age ≥75 years, SpO2 ≤94%, or PaO2/FiO2 ≤300 mm Hg). Main noninclusion criteria were organ failure requiring ICU, SpO2 ≤92% despite 5 L/min oxygen, life expectancy <3 months, vitamin D supplementation >800 IU/day during the preceding month, and contraindications to vitamin D supplements. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either a single oral high-dose (400,000 IU) or standard-dose (50,000 IU) cholecalciferol administered under medical supervision within 72 hours after the diagnosis of COVID-19. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but the Steering Committee and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board were masked to the randomization group and outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 14-day overall mortality. Between April 15 and December 17, 2020, of 1,207 patients who were assessed for eligibility in the COVIT-TRIAL study, 254 met eligibility criteria and formed the intention-to-treat population. The median age was 88 (IQR, 82 to 92) years, and 148 patients (58%) were women. Overall, 8 (6%) of 127 patients allocated to high-dose cholecalciferol, and 14 (11%) of 127 patients allocated to standard-dose cholecalciferol died within 14 days (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.39 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.99], P = 0.049, after controlling for randomization strata [i.e., age, oxygen requirement, hospitalization, use of antibiotics, anti-infective drugs, and/or corticosteroids] and baseline imbalances in important prognostic factors [i.e., sex, ongoing cancers, profuse diarrhea, and delirium at baseline]). The number needed to treat for one person to benefit (NNTB) was 21 [NNTB 9 to ∞ to number needed to treat for one person to harm (NNTH) 46]. Apparent benefits were also found on 14-day mortality due to COVID-19 (7 (6%) deaths in high-dose group and 14 (11%) deaths in standard-dose group; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.86], P = 0.02). The protective effect of the single oral high-dose administration was not sustained at 28 days (19 (15%) deaths in high-dose group and 21 (17%) deaths in standard-dose group; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.36 to 1.36], P = 0.29). High-dose cholecalciferol did not result in more frequent adverse effects compared to the standard dose. The open-label design and limited study power are the main limitations of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), we observed that the early administration of high-dose versus standard-dose vitamin D3 to at-risk older patients with COVID-19 improved overall mortality at day 14. The effect was no longer observed after 28 days.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04344041.

Association between vitamin D supplementation and cancer incidence and mortality: A trial sequential meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Observational studies and clinical trials have evaluated the associations between vitamin D supplementation and cancer incidence/mortality and obtained mixed results. Previous meta-analyses have also yielded inconsistent conclusions. In this paper, we conduct an updated meta-analysis by including current randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to assess the association between vitamin D supplementation and cancer incidence and mortality. The PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases were systematically searched from their inception to 6 February 2022. Fixed-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Trial sequential analyses were performed using a risk ratio reduction threshold of 10% for cancer incidence and mortality. Twenty-six RCTs were eligible, and pooled results indicated that vitamin D supplementation, compared to placebo with/without calcium, was not associated with a reduction in total cancer incidence (risk ratio: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.94, 1.02; I2 = 0%). In contrast, vitamin D supplementation significantly reduced total cancer mortality (risk ratio: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.8, 0.96; I2 = 0%). Moreover, trial sequential analysis provided reliable evidence that supplementation with vitamin D lowered the relative risk of total cancer mortality by 10%. Our updated meta-analysis suggested that vitamin D supplementation did not reduce total cancer incidence but significantly lowered total cancer mortality.Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2056574 .

Change of vitamin D status and all-cause mortality among Chinese older adults: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

The association of vitamin D with all-cause mortality remains controversial and longitudinal evidence exploring the potential effects of change in vitamin D status is limited in the oldest old (aged ≥ 80 years old). We aimed to study the relationship between vitamin D change and all-cause mortality among older Chinese adults including the oldest old.

METHODS

The data of Chinese Longitudinal and Health Longevity Study in 2012 and 2014 wave was used for baseline data. Mortality was assessed in the subsequent 2018 survey waves. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all-cause mortality related to vitamin D change, including maintaining deficiency or no deficiency, deficiency to no deficiency, and no deficiency to deficiency, using below 50 nmol/L as definition of deficiency.

RESULTS

The mean age of the total 1362 participants was 84.4 ± 12.1(60-113) years. The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was 67.5% and 68.4% in 2012 and 2014 wave respectively, and significantly differed by sex and age at baseline. Cox regression showed that participants with deficiency to no deficiency and maintaining no deficiency of vitamin D status had decreased HR for all-cause mortality, compared to the maintaining deficiency group. The HRs for mortality were 0.70(95%CI: 0.50-0.96, p = 0.028) and 0.47(95%CI: 0.33-0.68, p < 0.001) respectively in the adjusted model. Also, females and the oldest old had a greatest reduction in mortality risk. And no significant difference in mortality in the no deficiency to deficiency group.

CONCLUSIONS

Not only maintaining no deficiency, but also the change from deficiency to no deficiency of vitamin D status were associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, especially in the female and oldest-old participants initially with low vitamin D level.

Investigational drugs and nutrients for human longevity. Recent clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and clinicaltrialsregister.eu

Introduction:Several pharmacological drugs have shown proof of concept for longevity in animal models. I aimed to identify and review those longevity drug candidates that are undergoing clinical trials.Areas covered:Recent (post-2017) longevity clinical trials were found in US and EU clinical trial registries. Longevity drug candidates are the antidiabetic drugs metformin and acarbose, and the immunosuppressant rapamycin. These medicinal drugs are tested on biochemical and clinical markers of aging. In addition, vitamin D supplementation is being investigated in two mega-trials (sample size> 5000) for its efficacy in reducing all-cause mortality.Expert opinion:Anti-aging effects of longevity drug candidates suggest, but do not demonstrate that they prolong life. The two megatrials with vitamin D supplementation make it possible to detect differences in life expectancy between vitamin D and placebo. Therefore, a protocol similar to that for vitamin D could be used to demonstrate pro-longevity effects of metformin, acarbose, and rapamycin.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a protective effect of this intervention. We aimed to examine the link between vitamin D supplementation and prevention of ARIs in an updated meta-analysis.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for studies listed from database inception to May 1, 2020. Double-blind RCTs of vitamin D₃, vitamin D₂, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) supplementation for any duration, with a placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if they had been approved by a research ethics committee, and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Studies reporting results of long-term follow-up of primary RCTs were excluded. Aggregated study-level data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration and age, were obtained from study authors. Using the proportion of participants in each trial who had one or more ARIs, we did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to estimate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs (primary outcome) compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses were done to estimate whether the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25(OH)D concentration (<25 nmol/L vs 25·0-49·9 nmol/L vs 50·0-74·9 nmol/L vs >75·0 nmol/L), vitamin D dose (daily equivalent of <400 international units [IU] vs 400-1000 IU vs 1001-2000 IU vs >2000 IU), dosing frequency (daily vs weekly vs once per month to once every 3 months), trial duration (≤12 months vs >12 months), age at enrolment (<1·00 years vs 1·00-15·99 years vs 16·00-64·99 years vs ≥65·00 years), and presence versus absence of airway disease (ie, asthma only, COPD only, or unrestricted). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020190633.

FINDINGS

We identified 1528 articles, of which 46 RCTs (75 541 participants) were eligible. Data for the primary outcome were obtained for 48 488 (98·1%) of 49 419 participants (aged 0-95 years) in 43 studies. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the vitamin D supplementation group had one or more ARIs (14 332 [61·3%] of 23 364 participants) than in the placebo group (14 217 [62·3%] of 22 802 participants), with an OR of 0·92 (95% CI 0·86-0·99; 37 studies; I²=35·6%, p_{heterogeneity}=0·018). No significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs was observed for any of the subgroups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects of supplementation were observed in trials in which vitamin D was given in a daily dosing regimen (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·65-0·94]; 19 studies; I²=53·5%, p_{heterogeneity}=0·003), at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (0·70 [0·55-0·89]; ten studies; I²=31·2%, p_{heterogeneity}=0·16), for a duration of 12 months or less (0·82 [0·72-0·93]; 29 studies; I²=38·1%, p_{heterogeneity}=0·021), and to participants aged 1·00-15·99 years at enrolment (0·71 [0·57-0·90]; 15 studies; I²=46·0%, p_{heterogeneity}=0·027). No significant interaction between allocation to the vitamin D supplementation group versus the placebo group and dose, dose frequency, study duration, or age was observed. In addition, no significant difference in the proportion of participants who had at least one serious adverse event in the vitamin supplementation group compared with the placebo group was observed (0·97 [0·86-1·07]; 36 studies; I²=0·0%, p_{heterogeneity}=0·99). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials.

INTERPRETATION

Despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials, vitamin D supplementation was safe and overall reduced the risk of ARI compared with placebo, although the risk reduction was small. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU for up to 12 months, and age at enrolment of 1·00-15·99 years. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires further investigation.

FUNDING

None.

Is There Proof of Extraskeletal Benefits From Vitamin D Supplementation From Recent Mega Trials of Vitamin D?

Scientific interest in possible extraskeletal effects of vitamin D first appeared in the 1930s soon after the structure of vitamin D was characterized, and increased in the 1980s with the development of assays of 25-hydroxyvitamin D status as a marker of vitamin D status, which in observational epidemiological studies was shown to be inversely associated with many nonskeletal diseases. This resulted in the start of seven large randomized controlled trials (n > 2000 participants in each) of vitamin D supplementation giving higher doses than previously used. The intervention periods in these trials collectively started in 2009 and continued to 2020. They have recruited participants, mostly of both sexes and over the age of 50 years, from many countries and have given either daily or monthly doses of vitamin D. Collectively, the trials have a wide range of outcomes with the main focus on the prevention of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and fractures, besides many other outcomes. The findings of four trials have been published, and they have shown that vitamin D supplementation does not prevent hard-disease endpoints, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, fractures, or falls, aside from a possible beneficial effect against cancer mortality. In contrast, beneficial effects were seen for intermediate outcomes such as BMD of spine and hips, arterial function, and lung function, especially in people with vitamin D deficiency. The finding of a benefit primarily in people with vitamin D deficiency, if confirmed by the other trials, would support a population approach to preventing vitamin D deficiency using fortification rather than the high-risk approach of screening for deficiency combined with supplementation. The findings on other outcomes from the three published trials, along with the findings from the four unpublished trials, are expected within the next 2 to 3 years to clarify the role of vitamin D supplementation in preventing nonskeletal disease. © 2020 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Vitamin D Supplementation for Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: To D or Not to D?

CONTEXT

Over the last decade, vitamin D has emerged as a risk determinant for type 2 diabetes and vitamin D supplementation has been hypothesized as a potential intervention to lower diabetes risk. Recently, several trials have reported on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on diabetes prevention in people with prediabetes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive literature review was performed using PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify: (1) recent meta-analyses of longitudinal observational studies that report on the association between blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) level and incident diabetes, and (2) clinical trials of adults with prediabetes that have reported on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on incident diabetes.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Longitudinal observational studies report highly consistent associations between higher blood 25(OH)D levels and a lower risk of incident diabetes in diverse populations, including populations with prediabetes. Trials in persons with prediabetes show risk reduction in incident diabetes with vitamin D supplementation. In the 3 large trials that were specifically designed and conducted for the prevention of diabetes, vitamin D supplementation, when compared with placebo, reduced the risk of developing diabetes by 10% to 13% in persons with prediabetes not selected for vitamin D deficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from recent trials are congruent with a large body of evidence from observational studies indicating that vitamin D has a role in modulating diabetes risk. Participant-level meta-analysis of the 3 largest trials should provide a more refined estimate of risk reduction and identify patient populations that are likely to benefit the most from vitamin D supplementation.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections revealed a protective effect of the intervention. Since then, 20 new RCTs have been completed.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. Pre-specified sub-group analyses were done to determine whether effects of vitamin D on risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration or dosing regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception to 1st May 2020. Double-blind RCTs of supplementation with vitamin D or calcidiol, of any duration, were eligible if they were approved by a Research Ethics Committee and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and pre-specified as an efficacy outcome. Aggregate data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020190633).

FINDINGS

We identified 45 eligible RCTs (total 73,384 participants). Data were obtained for 46,331 (98.0%) of 47,262 participants in 42 studies, aged 0 to 95 years. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; P for heterogeneity 0.01). No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for any of the sub-groups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects were seen for trials in which vitamin D was given using a daily dosing regimen (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93); at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89); and for a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.93). No significant interaction was seen between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, dose size, or study duration. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.008, Egger's test).

INTERPRETATION

Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation.

FUNDING

None.

Vitamin D in obesity and obesity-related diseases: an overview

Hypovitaminosis D and obesity represent two pandemic conditions sometimes associated with each other. Although it is known that there is a close relationship between these two health problems, the underlying pathophysiological mechanism has not yet been fully clarified. In fact, on the one hand, obesity per se seems to involve low circulating levels of vitamin D due to low sun exposure, physical activity, and intake of foods rich in vitamin D, volumetric dilution and sequestration in the adipose tissue. Conversely, since preadipocytes and adipocytes express the receptors and are involved in the metabolism of vitamin D it would seem that low levels of this vitamin may be involved in adipogenesis and therefore in the development of obesity. This connection is extremely important when considering obesity-related diseases. In fact, low vitamin D levels and severe obesity are significantly associated with some cardio-metabolic risk factors, including high Body Mass Index, waist circumference, blood pressure, impaired lipid and glycemic profile and insulin resistance, as they would seem associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes and higher cancer incidence and mortality. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to examine the recent evidence linking low vitamin D status, obesity and obesity-related diseases, highlighting the scientific achievements and the gaps to be filled with further investigations.