Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation for Prevention of Preeclampsia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Khaing W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5691757 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation for Prevention of Preeclampsia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Khaing Win W Vallibhakara Sakda Arj-Ong SA Tantrakul Visasiri V Vallibhakara Orawin O Rattanasiri Sasivimol S McEvoy Mark M Attia John J Thakkinstian Ammarin A
Nutrients 20171018 10
Vitamin D supplementation effects with or without calcium in pregnancy for reducing risk of preeclampsia and gestational or pregnancy induced hypertension are controversial. Literature was systematically searched in Medline, Scopus and Cochrane databases from inception to July 2017. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in English were selected if they had any pair of interventions (calcium, vitamin D, both, or placebo). Systematic review with two-step network-meta-analysis was used to indire ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceVitamin D and calcium supplements are recommended for the prevention of fracture, but previous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have reported conflicting results, with uncertainty about optimal doses and regimens for supplementation and their overall effectiveness.ObjectiveTo assess the risks of fracture associated with differences in concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) in observational studies and the risks of fracture associated with supplementation with vitamin D alone or in combination with calcium in RCTs.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and other RCT databases were searched from database inception until December 31, 2018. Searches were performed between July 2018 and December 2018.Study selectionObservational studies involving at least 200 fracture cases and RCTs enrolling at least 500 participants and reporting at least 10 incident fractures were included. Randomized clinical trials compared vitamin D or vitamin D and calcium with control.Data extraction and synthesisTwo researchers independently extracted data according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and assessed possible bias. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated using fixed-effects meta-analysis. Data extraction and synthesis took place between July 2018 and June 2019.Main outcomes and measuresAny fracture and hip fracture.ResultsIn a meta-analysis of 11 observational studies (39?141 participants, 6278 fractures, 2367 hip fractures), each increase of 10.0 ng/mL (ie, 25 nmol/L) in 25 (OH)D concentration was associated with an adjusted RR for any fracture of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.96) and an adjusted RR for hip fracture of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86). A meta-analysis of 11 RCTs (34?243 participants, 2843 fractures, 740 hip fractures) of vitamin D supplementation alone (daily or intermittent dose of 400-30?000 IU, yielding a median difference in 25[OH]D concentration of 8.4 ng/mL) did not find a reduced risk of any fracture (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.14) or hip fracture (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.98-1.32), but these trials were constrained by infrequent intermittent dosing, low daily doses of vitamin D, or an inadequate number of participants. In contrast, a meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (49?282 participants, 5449 fractures, 730 hip fractures) of combined supplementation with vitamin D (daily doses of 400-800 IU, yielding a median difference in 25[OH]D concentration of 9.2 ng/mL) and calcium (daily doses of 1000-1200 mg) found a 6% reduced risk of any fracture (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99) and a 16% reduced risk of hip fracture (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, neither intermittent nor daily dosing with standard doses of vitamin D alone was associated with reduced risk of fracture, but daily supplementation with both vitamin D and calcium was a more promising strategy.
| S-EPMC6991219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine the efficacy of calcium supplementation in reducing the recurrence of colorectal adenomas.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. We searched PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website, through December 2015. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials assessing supplemental calcium intake for the prevention of recurrence of adenomas were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently selected studies based on predefined criteria, extracted data and outcomes (recurrence of colorectal adenomas, and advanced or "high-risk" adenomas), and rated each trial's risk-of-bias. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed, and pooled risk ratio (RR) estimates with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models. To express the treatment effect in clinical terms, we calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one adenoma recurrence. We also assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE.Four randomized, placebo-controlled trials met the eligibility criteria and were included. Daily doses of elemental calcium ranged from 1200 to 2000 mg, while the duration of treatment and follow-up of participants ranged from 36 to 60 mo. Synthesis of intention-to-treat data, for participants who had undergone follow-up colonoscopies, indicated a modest protective effect of calcium in prevention of adenomas (fixed-effects, RR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.82-0.96; random-effects, RR = 0.87, 95%CI: 0.77-0.98; high quality of evidence). The NNT was 20 (95%CI: 12-61) to prevent one colorectal adenoma recurrence within a period of 3 to 5 years. On the other hand, the association between calcium treatment and advanced adenomas did not reach statistical significance (fixed-effects, RR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.75-1.13; random-effects, RR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.71-1.18; moderate quality of evidence).Our results suggest a modest chemopreventive effect of calcium supplements against recurrent colorectal adenomas over a period of 36 to 60 mo. Further research is warranted.
| S-EPMC4858641 | biostudies-other
Project description:In recent years, the scientific evidence linking vitamin D status or supplementation to breast cancer has grown notably. To investigate the role of vitamin D supplementation on breast cancer incidence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing vitamin D with placebo or no treatment. We used OVID to search MEDLINE (R), EMBASE and CENTRAL until April 2012. We screened the reference lists of included studies and used the "Related Article" feature in PubMed to identify additional articles. No language restrictions were applied. Two reviewers independently extracted data on methodological quality, participants, intervention, comparison and outcomes. Risk Ratios and 95% Confident Intervals for breast cancer were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) test. In sensitivity analysis, we assessed the impact of vitamin D dosage and mode of administration on treatment effects. Only two randomized controlled trials fulfilled the pre-set inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis included 5372 postmenopausal women. Overall, Risk Ratios and 95% Confident Intervals were 1.11 and 0.74-1.68. We found no evidence of heterogeneity. Neither vitamin D dosage nor mode of administration significantly affected breast cancer risk. However, treatment efficacy was somewhat greater when vitamin D was administered at the highest dosage and in combination with calcium (Risk Ratio 0.58, 95% Confident Interval 0.23-1.47 and Risk Ratio 0.93, 95% Confident Interval 0.54-1.60, respectively). In conclusions, vitamin D use seems not to be associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer development in postmenopausal women. However, the available evidence is still limited and inadequate to draw firm conclusions. Study protocol code: FARM8L2B5L.
| S-EPMC3718745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background & objectivesCalcium and vitamin D, separately or in combination are usually prescribed to prevent fragility fractures in elderly population. However, there are conflicting results regarding the ideal dosage and overall efficacy obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in the past. The objective of this study was to assess the fracture risk with the administration of calcium or vitamin D alone or in combination in elderly population (>60 yr).MethodsPubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched to identify the studies from inception to February 2021 with keywords, 'vitamin D', 'calcium' and 'fracture' to identify RCTs. The trials with comparing vitamin D, calcium or combination with either no medication or placebo were included for final analyses. The data were extracted and the study quality was assessed by two reviewers. The principal outcome measure was fractures around hip joint and secondary outcomes assessed were vertebral and any other fracture.ResultsEighteen RCTs were considered for the final analysis. Neither calcium nor vitamin D supplementation was associated with risk of fractures around hip joint [risk ratio (RR) 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91 to 2.69, I[2]=28%; P=0.11]. In addition, the combined administration of calcium and vitamin D was also not associated with fractures around the hip joint in comparison to either no treatment or placebo. The incidence of vertebral (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.10, I[2]=0%; P=0.49) or any other fracture (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06, I[2]=0%; P=0.14) was not significantly associated with the administration of calcium and vitamin D either individually or in combination. Further subgroup analysis of the results did not vary with the dosage of calcium or vitamin D, dietary calcium intake sex, or serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.Interpretation & conclusionsThe present meta-analysis of RCTs on calcium, vitamin D or a combination of the two in comparison to no treatment or placebo did not support the routine administration protocol of calcium and vitamin D either alone or in combination to lower the risk of fractures in elderly population.
| S-EPMC10550056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPrevious randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs evaluating vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of cancer incidence and mortality have found inconsistent results and no meta-analysis has assessed the quality of the evidence available. We, therefore, aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis by including recent large-scale RCTs and assessing the quality of the pooled evidence.MethodsWe searched several databases and trial registers from inception to April 2022. We used a random-effects model to estimate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) considerations to evaluate the certainty of evidence.ResultsWe included 13 RCTs in our study. Vitamin D supplementation had no effect on the risk of total cancer incidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.94-1.04; I 2 = 0%), total cancer mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.84-1.03; I 2 = 24%) and total mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.82-1.04; I 2 = 36%). The overall quality of evidence was high for all outcomes.DiscussionVitamin D supplementation is ineffective in reducing total cancer incidence and mortality in largely vitamin D-replete older adult populations. Future research should be based on populations with a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and should involve more extended follow-up periods.Study protocolPROSPERO database, CRD42021285401.
| S-EPMC9636470 | 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:Malaria causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. There are several preventive measures that are currently employed, including insecticide-treated nets (ITNs, including long-lasting insecticidal nets and insecticidal-treated bed nets), indoor residual spraying (IRS), prophylactic drugs (PD), and untreated nets (UN). However, it is unclear which measure is the most effective for malaria prevention. We therefore undertook a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of different preventive measures on incidence of malaria infection.A systematic literature review was undertaken across four medical and life sciences databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, and Web of Science) from their inception to July 2016 to compare the effectiveness of different preventive measures on malaria incidence. Data from the included studies were analysed for the effectiveness of several measures against no intervention (NI). This was carried out using an automated generalized pairwise modeling (GPM) framework for network meta-analysis to generate mixed treatment effects against a common comparator of no intervention (NI).There were 30 studies that met the inclusion criteria from 1998-2016. The GPM framework led to a final ranking of effectiveness of measures in the following order from best to worst: PD, ITN, IRS and UN, in comparison with NI. However, only ITN (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32-0.74) showed precision while other methods [PD (RR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.004-15.43), IRS (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.20-1.56) and UN (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.28-1.90)] demonstrating considerable uncertainty associated with their point estimates.Current evidence is strong for the protective effect of ITN interventions in malaria prevention. Even though ITNs were found to be the only preventive measure with statistical support for their effectiveness, the role of other malaria control measures may be important adjuncts in the global drive to eliminate malaria.
| S-EPMC5869791 | biostudies-other
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:ObjectiveCalcium supplementation can prevent gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia. However, besides the non-consensus of existing studies, there is a lack of evidence regarding the optimal dosing of calcium.MethodEight electronic databases, namely, the Cochrane Library, PUBMED, Web of Science, EMBASE, WANGFANG, VIP, CBM, and CNKI, were searched. The studies were retrieved from inception to July 13, 2021. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality based on the inclusion criteria. In particular, the calcium supplementation doses were divided into three groups, namely, the high-dose (≥1.5 g), medium-dose (1.0-1.49 g), and the low-dose group (<1.0 g). The participants were also divided into high-risk and low-risk groups, according to the risk of developing gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia.Results and discussionA total of 48 studies were incorporated into the final analyses. All doses of calcium supplementation reduced the incidence of gestational hypertension in the low-risk population (low dose - three studies; medium dose- 11 studies; high dose- 28 studies), whereas the medium-dose (three studies) reduced the incidence of gestational hypertension in high-risk groups. Moreover, a medium dose of calcium supplementation had the maximum effect in reducing gestational hypertension in low-risk and high-risk populations. The medium (three studies) and high doses (13 studies) of calcium supplementation reduced the incidence of pre-eclampsia in the low-risk groups. However, a medium-dose calcium supplementation maximally prevented pre-eclampsia in the low-risk population. The authenticity and reliability of the results were reduced due to the limitations of contemporary studies in terms of experimental design, result measurement, statistics, and evidence quality. Therefore, high-quality studies with larger sample size are required to evaluate further the effect of calcium supplementation in preventing gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia.
| S-EPMC8801486 | biostudies-literature