Non-skeletal health effects of vitamin D supplementation: A systematic review on findings from meta-analyses summarizing trial data.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
A large number of observational studies have reported harmful effects of low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels on non-skeletal outcomes. We performed a systematic quantitative review on characteristics of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) included in meta-analyses (MAs) on non-skeletal effects of vitamin D supplementation.Methods and findings
We identified systematic reviews (SR) reporting summary data in terms of MAs of RCTs on selected non-skeletal outcomes. For each outcome, we summarized the results from available SRs and scrutinized included RCTs for a number of predefined characteristics. We identified 54 SRs including data from 210 RCTs. Most MAs as well as the individual RCTs reported null-findings on risk of cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, weight-loss, and malignant diseases. Beneficial effects of vitamin D supplementation was reported in 1 of 4 MAs on depression, 2 of 9 MAs on blood pressure, 3 of 7 MAs on respiratory tract infections, and 8 of 12 MAs on mortality. Most RCTs have primarily been performed to determine skeletal outcomes, whereas non-skeletal effects have been assessed as secondary outcomes. Only one-third of the RCTs had low level of 25OHD as a criterion for inclusion and a mean baseline 25OHD level below 50 nmol/L was only present in less than half of the analyses.Conclusions
Published RCTs have mostly been performed in populations without low 25OHD levels. The fact that most MAs on results from RCTs did not show a beneficial effect does not disprove the hypothesis suggested by observational findings on adverse health outcomes of low 25OHD levels.
SUBMITTER: Rejnmark L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5501555 | biostudies-literature | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Non-skeletal health effects of vitamin D supplementation: A systematic review on findings from meta-analyses summarizing trial data.
Rejnmark Lars L Bislev Lise Sofie LS Cashman Kevin D KD Eiríksdottir Gudny G Gaksch Martin M Grübler Martin M Grimnes Guri G Gudnason Vilmundur V Lips Paul P Pilz Stefan S van Schoor Natasja M NM Kiely Mairead M Jorde Rolf R
PloS one 20170707 7
<h4>Background</h4>A large number of observational studies have reported harmful effects of low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels on non-skeletal outcomes. We performed a systematic quantitative review on characteristics of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) included in meta-analyses (MAs) on non-skeletal effects of vitamin D supplementation.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We identified systematic reviews (SR) reporting summary data in terms of MAs of RCTs on selected non-skeletal outcomes. For eac ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:A previous aggregate data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials showed that vitamin D supplementation reduces the rate of asthma exacerbations requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids. Whether this effect is restricted to patients with low baseline vitamin D status is unknown. METHODS:For this systematic review and one-step and two-step meta-analysis of individual participant data, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trials of vitamin D3 or vitamin D2 supplementation in people with asthma that reported incidence of asthma exacerbation, published between database inception and Oct 26, 2016. We analysed individual participant data requested from the principal investigator for each eligible trial, adjusting for age and sex, and clustering by study. The primary outcome was the incidence of asthma exacerbation requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids. Mixed-effects regression models were used to obtain the pooled intervention effect with a 95% CI. Subgroup analyses were done to determine whether effects of vitamin D on risk of asthma exacerbation varied according to baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration, age, ethnic or racial origin, body-mass index, vitamin D dosing regimen, use of inhaled corticosteroids, or end-study 25(OH)D levels; post-hoc subgroup analyses were done according to sex and study duration. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014013953. FINDINGS:Our search identified 483 unique studies, eight of which were eligible randomised controlled trials (total 1078 participants). We sought individual participant data for each and obtained it for seven studies (955 participants). Vitamin D supplementation reduced the rate of asthma exacerbation requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids among all participants (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·56-0·97; p=0·03; 955 participants in seven studies; high-quality evidence). There were no significant differences between vitamin D and placebo in the proportion of participants with at least one exacerbation or time to first exacerbation. Subgroup analyses of the rate of asthma exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids revealed that protective effects were seen in participants with baseline 25(OH)D of less than 25 nmol/L (aIRR 0·33, 0·11-0·98; p=0·046; 92 participants in three studies; moderate-quality evidence) but not in participants with higher baseline 25(OH)D levels (aIRR 0·77, 0·58-1·03; p=0·08; 764 participants in six studies; moderate-quality evidence; pinteraction=0·25). p values for interaction for all other subgroup analyses were also higher than 0·05; therefore, we did not show that the effects of this intervention are stronger in any one subgroup than in another. Six studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias, and one was assessed as being at unclear risk of bias. The two-step meta-analysis did not reveal evidence of heterogeneity of effect (I2=0·0, p=0·56). INTERPRETATION:Vitamin D supplementation reduced the rate of asthma exacerbations requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids overall. We did not find definitive evidence that effects of this intervention differed across subgroups of patients. FUNDING:Health Technology Assessment Program, National Institute for Health Research (reference number 13/03/25).
| S-EPMC5693329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Low levels of vitamin D are associated with elevated blood pressure (BP) and future cardiovascular events. Whether vitamin D supplementation reduces BP and which patient characteristics predict a response remain unclear.To systematically review whether supplementation with vitamin D or its analogues reduce BP.We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and http://www.ClinicalTrials.com augmented by a hand search of references from the included articles and previous reviews. Google was searched for gray literature (ie, material not published in recognized scientific journals). No language restrictions were applied. The search period spanned January 1, 1966, through March 31, 2014.We included randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials that used vitamin D supplementation for a minimum of 4 weeks for any indication and reported BP data. Studies were included if they used active or inactive forms of vitamin D or vitamin D analogues. Cointerventions were permitted if identical in all treatment arms.We extracted data on baseline demographics, 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP), and change in BP from baseline to the final follow-up. Individual patient data on age, sex, medication use, diabetes mellitus, baseline and follow-up BP, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were requested from the authors of the included studies. For trial-level data, between-group differences in BP change were combined in a random-effects model. For individual patient data, between-group differences in BP at the final follow up, adjusted for baseline BP, were calculated before combining in a random-effects model.Difference in SBP and DBP measured in an office setting.We included 46 trials (4541 participants) in the trial-level meta-analysis. Individual patient data were obtained for 27 trials (3092 participants). At the trial level, no effect of vitamin D supplementation was seen on SBP (effect size, 0.0 [95% CI, -0.8 to 0.8] mm Hg; P=.97; I2=21%) or DBP (effect size, -0.1 [95% CI, -0.6 to 0.5] mm Hg; P=.84; I2=20%). Similar results were found analyzing individual patient data for SBP (effect size, -0.5 [95% CI, -1.3 to 0.4] mm Hg; P=.27; I2=0%) and DBP (effect size, 0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to 0.7] mm Hg; P=.38; I2=0%). Subgroup analysis did not reveal any baseline factor predictive of a better response to therapy.Vitamin D supplementation is ineffective as an agent for lowering BP and thus should not be used as an antihypertensive agent.
| S-EPMC5966296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives To assess the overall effect of vitamin D supplementation on risk of acute respiratory tract infection, and to identify factors modifying this effect.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) from randomised controlled trials.Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry from inception to December 2015.Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trials of supplementation with vitamin D3 or vitamin D2 of any duration were eligible for inclusion if they had been approved by a research ethics committee and if data on incidence of acute respiratory tract infection were collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome.Results 25 eligible randomised controlled trials (total 11 321 participants, aged 0 to 95 years) were identified. IPD were obtained for 10 933 (96.6%) participants. Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory tract infection among all participants (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.96; P for heterogeneity <0.001). In subgroup analysis, protective effects were seen in those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D without additional bolus doses (adjusted odds ratio 0.81, 0.72 to 0.91) but not in those receiving one or more bolus doses (adjusted odds ratio 0.97, 0.86 to 1.10; P for interaction=0.05). Among those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D, protective effects were stronger in those with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels <25 nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 0.17 to 0.53) than in those with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥25 nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.75, 0.60 to 0.95; P for interaction=0.006). Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 0.80 to 1.20, P=0.83). The body of evidence contributing to these analyses was assessed as being of high quality.Conclusions Vitamin D supplementation was safe and it protected against acute respiratory tract infection overall. Patients who were very vitamin D deficient and those not receiving bolus doses experienced the most benefit.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014013953.
| S-EPMC5310969 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere is growing evidence that vitamin D plays a role in the pathogenesis of asthma but it is unclear whether supplementation during childhood may improve asthma outcomes.ObjectivesThe objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment or adjunct treatment for asthma.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL through July 2014.Study selectionWe included RCTs that evaluated vitamin D supplementation in children versus active control or placebo for asthma.Data extraction and synthesisOne reviewer extracted data and one reviewer verified data accuracy. We qualitatively summarized the main results of efficacy and safety and meta-analyzed data on comparable outcomes across studies. We used GRADE for strength of evidence.Main outcome measuresMain planned outcomes measures were ED visits and hospitalizations. As secondary outcomes, we examined measures of asthma control, including frequency of asthma exacerbations, asthma symptom scores, measures of lung function, β2-agonist use and daily steroid use, adverse events and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.ResultsEight RCTs (one parallel, one crossover design) comprising 573 children aged 3 to 18 years were included. One study (moderate-quality, n = 100) reported significantly less ED visits for children treated with vitamin D. No other studies examined the primary outcome (ED visits and hospitalizations). There was a reduced risk of asthma exacerbations in children receiving vitamin D (low-quality; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.63, 3 studies, n = 378). There was no significant effect for asthma symptom scores and lung function. The serum 25(OH)D level was higher in the vitamin D group at the end of the intervention (low-quality; MD 19.66 nmol/L, 95% CI 5.96 nmol/L to 33.37 nmol/L, 5 studies, n = 167).LimitationsWe identified a high degree of clinical diversity (interventions and outcomes) and methodological heterogeneity (sample size and risk of bias) in included trials.Conclusions and relevanceRandomized controlled trials provide some low-quality evidence to support vitamin D supplementation for the reduction of asthma exacerbations. Evidence on the benefits of vitamin D supplementation for other asthma-related outcomes in children is either limited or inconclusive. We recommend that future trials focus on patient-relevant outcomes that are comparable across studies, including standardized definitions of asthma exacerbations.
| S-EPMC4556456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether vitamin D supplementation is associated with lower mortality in adults.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register from their inception to 26 December 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing vitamin D supplementation with a placebo or no treatment for mortality were included. Independent data extraction was conducted and study quality assessed. A meta-analysis was carried out by using fixed effects and random effects models to calculate risk ratio of death in the group receiving vitamin D supplementation and the control group.Main outcome measuresAll cause mortality.Results52 trials with a total of 75 454 participants were identified. Vitamin D supplementation was not associated with all cause mortality (risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.02, I2=0%), cardiovascular mortality (0.98, 0.88 to 1.08, 0%), or non-cancer, non-cardiovascular mortality (1.05, 0.93 to 1.18, 0%). Vitamin D supplementation statistically significantly reduced the risk of cancer death (0.84, 0.74 to 0.95, 0%). In subgroup analyses, all cause mortality was significantly lower in trials with vitamin D3 supplementation than in trials with vitamin D2 supplementation (P for interaction=0.04); neither vitamin D3 nor vitamin D2 was associated with a statistically significant reduction in all cause mortality.ConclusionsVitamin D supplementation alone was not associated with all cause mortality in adults compared with placebo or no treatment. Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of cancer death by 16%. Additional large clinical studies are needed to determine whether vitamin D3 supplementation is associated with lower all cause mortality.Study registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42018117823.
| S-EPMC6689821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Summary Vitamin D has many protective properties and potential role against acute lung injury. Low serum vitamin D is associated with high risk of pneumonia and development of acute respiratory distress syndrome. This study sought to analyse the efficacy of vitamin D in improving the outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19) patients. Using specific keywords, we comprehensively searched the potential articles on PubMed, Europe PMC and ClinicalTrials.gov database until 8th May 2021. All published studies on Covid‐19 and vitamin D were retrieved. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4 software. A total of 11 studies with 22,265 Covid‐19 patients were included in the meta‐analysis. Our data suggested that vitamin D supplementation was associated with reduction in intensive care unit admission rate (OR 0.27; 95% CI: 0.09–0.76, p = 0.010, I2 = 70%, random‐effect modelling); reduction of the need for mechanical ventilation (OR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.16–0.72, p = 0.005, I2 = 61%, random‐effect modelling) and reduction of mortality from Covid‐19 (OR 0.37; 95% CI: 0.21–0.66, p < 0.001, I2 = 50%, random‐effect modelling). Further analysis showed that the associations were influenced by age (p = 0.020). Our study suggests that vitamin D supplementation may offer beneficial effects on Covid‐19 outcomes. However, more randomized clinical trials are required to confirm this conclusion.
| S-EPMC8420388 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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. 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). 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). 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. None.
| S-EPMC7709175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow plasma levels of vitamin C are associated with adverse outcomes, including increased mortality, in critically ill patients. Several trials have suggested that the administration of intravenous vitamin C in this setting may have beneficial effects, such as reducing the incidence of organ failure and improving survival. However, these studies have generally involved combination therapies consisting of vitamin C along with other antioxidants, confounding the effects of vitamin C alone. The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to investigate the effects of isolated intravenous supplementation of vitamin C in adults with critical illness.MethodsA database search was conducted for studies on the use of intravenous vitamin C in adult patients with critical illness. The primary outcome assessed was mortality at the longest follow-up time available. Secondary outcomes were the duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of vasopressor support, fluid requirements, and urine output in the first 24 h of intensive care unit admission.ResultsFive studies (four randomized controlled trials and one retrospective review) enrolling a total of 142 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with controls, the administration of intravenous vitamin C was associated with a decreased need for vasopressor support (standardized mean difference -0.71; 95% confidence interval (-1.16 to -0.26); p = 0.002) and decreased duration of mechanical ventilation (standardized mean difference -0.5; 95% confidence interval (-0.93 to -0.06); p = 0.03), but no difference was found in mortality (odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval (0.27 to 2.16); p = 0.6). Trends were also noted toward decreased fluid requirements and increased urine output. No adverse effects were reported.ConclusionThe administration of intravenous vitamin C may lead to vasopressor sparing effects and a reduced need for mechanical ventilation in the critically ill, without affecting overall mortality. However, these results should be interpreted in light of the limitations of the primary literature and should serve as a preview of upcoming trials in this area.
| S-EPMC6196621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Backgrounds: Several studies have shown that the level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) could affect urticaria. The association of Vitamin D (VitD) with urticaria has not been well established. (2) Methods: The up-to-date meta-analysis was performed to synthesize the new findings. We performed a systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database. We included the observational studies with the comparisons of 25(OH)D between urticarial populations and controls and clinical studies with the clinical severity of urticaria records. (3) Results: A meta-analysis of seventeen studies of urticaria group vs. controls revealed a mean difference of -9.35 ng/mL (95% CI -12.27 to -6.44). There was also an association of urticaria with VitD deficiency. In the subgroup analysis of age and disease type, significant effects of 25(OH)D were found among adult and chronic urticarial populations. Six VitD supplementation trials showed a significant reduction in clinical urticarial score on intervention with VitD with the standard mean difference of -3.63 and -1.54 among randomized control studies and repeated measure trials, respectively. (4) Conclusions: The urticarial population, especially the adult chronic urticarial patients, may be associated with a high risk for lower serum 25(OH)D. VitD supplementations could result in a reduction of urticarial clinical symptoms.
| S-EPMC8125545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Our previous study-level (aggregate data) meta-analysis suggested that vitamin D supplements may be beneficial for bone density specifically in children with vitamin D deficiency. However, the misclassification of vitamin D status inherent in study-level data means that the results are not definitive and cannot provide an accurate assessment of the size of any effect. Therefore, we propose to undertake an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to determine whether the effect of vitamin D supplementation on bone density in children differs according to baseline vitamin D status, and to specifically estimate the effect of vitamin D in children who are vitamin D deficient. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This study has been designed to adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of IPD statement. We will include randomised placebo-controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation reporting bone density outcomes at least 6 months after the study commenced in children and adolescents (aged <20 years) without coexistent medical conditions or treatments causing osteoporosis. We will update the search of the original review to cover the period 2009-2017, using the same methods as the original review. Fully anonymised data on all randomised patients will be requested. Outcomes will be femoral neck, total hip, lumbar spine and proximal and distal forearm bone mineral density, and total body bone mineral content. A two-stage IPD meta-analysis will be used to examine the effect of baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) on treatment effect for each bone density outcome. Restricted maximum likelihood will be used to estimate the random-effects meta-analysis models, with 95% CI for summary effects. Heterogeneity will be assessed by I2 and potential publication bias (small-study effects) and availability bias by funnel plots, Egger's test and Peter's test. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval will not be required as the data are to be used for the primary purpose for which they were collected and all original individual studies had ethics approval. Results of the IPD meta-analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017068772.
| S-EPMC5786083 | biostudies-other