Dataset Information

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent asthma exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

ABSTRACT: 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).

SUBMITTER: Jolliffe DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5693329 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent asthma exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

Jolliffe David A DA Greenberg Lauren L Hooper Richard L RL Griffiths Christopher J CJ Camargo Carlos A CA Kerley Conor P CP Jensen Megan E ME Mauger David D Stelmach Iwona I Urashima Mitsuyoshi M Martineau Adrian R AR

The Lancet. Respiratory medicine 20171003 11

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 28986128

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe polymorphism Arg16 in β2 -adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) gene has been associated with an increased risk of exacerbations in asthmatic children treated with long-acting β2 -agonists (LABA). However, it remains unclear whether this increased risk is mainly attributed to this single variant or the combined effect of the haplotypes of polymorphisms at codons 16 and 27.ObjectiveWe assessed whether the haplotype analysis could explain the association between the polymorphisms at codons 16 (Arg16Gly) and 27 (Gln27Glu) in ADRB2 and risk of asthma exacerbations in patients treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus LABA.MethodsThe study was undertaken using data from 10 independent studies (n = 5903) participating in the multi-ethnic Pharmacogenomics in Childhood Asthma (PiCA) consortium. Asthma exacerbations were defined as asthma-related use of oral corticosteroids or hospitalizations/emergency department visits in the past 6 or 12 months prior to the study visit/enrolment. The association between the haplotypes and the risk of asthma exacerbations was performed per study using haplo.stats package adjusted for age and sex. Results were meta-analysed using the inverse variance weighting method assuming random-effects.ResultsIn subjects treated with ICS and LABA (n = 832, age: 3-21 years), Arg16/Gln27 versus Gly16/Glu27 (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.05-1.87, I2 = 0.0%) and Arg16/Gln27 versus Gly16/Gln27 (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.05-1.94, I2 = 0.0%), but not Gly16/Gln27 versus Gly16/Glu27 (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.71-1.39, I2 = 0.0%), were significantly associated with an increased risk of asthma exacerbations. The sensitivity analyses indicated no significant association between the ADRB2 haplotypes and asthma exacerbations in the other treatment categories, namely as-required short-acting β2 -agonists (n = 973), ICS monotherapy (n = 2623), ICS plus leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA; n = 338), or ICS plus LABA plus LTRA (n = 686).Conclusion and clinical relevanceThe ADRB2 Arg16 haplotype, presumably mainly driven by the Arg16, increased the risk of asthma exacerbations in patients treated with ICS plus LABA. This finding could be beneficial in ADRB2 genotype-guided treatment which might improve clinical outcomes in asthmatic patients.

Project description:BackgroundBacterial vaginosis (BV) increases preterm delivery (PTD) risk, but treatment trials showed mixed results in preventing PTD.ObjectivesDetermine, using individual participant data (IPD), whether BV treatment during pregnancy reduced PTD or prolonged time-to-delivery.Data sourcesCochrane Systematic Review (2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, journal searches, and searches (January 2013-September 2022) ("bacterial vaginosis AND pregnancy") of (i) clinicaltrials.gov; (ii) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; (iii) World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Portal; and (iv) Web of Science ("bacterial vaginosis").Study selection and data extractionStudies randomising asymptomatic pregnant individuals with BV to antibiotics or control, measuring delivery gestation. Extraction was from original data files. Bias risk was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Analysis used "one-step" logistic and Cox random effect models, adjusting gestation at randomisation and PTD history; heterogeneity by I2 . Subgroup analysis tested interactions with treatment. In sensitivity analyses, studies not providing IPD were incorporated by "multiple random-donor hot-deck" imputation, using IPD studies as donors.ResultsThere were 121 references (96 studies) with 23 eligible trials (11,979 participants); 13 studies (6915 participants) provided IPD; 12 (6115) were incorporated. Results from 9 (4887 participants) not providing IPD were imputed. Odds ratios for PTD for metronidazole and clindamycin versus placebo were 1.00 (95% CI 0.84, 1.17), I2 = 62%, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.42, 0.82), I2 = 0 before; and 0.95 (95% CI 0.81, 1.11), I2 = 59%, and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.72, 1.12), I2 = 0, after imputation. Time-to-delivery did not differ from null with either treatment. Including imputed IPD, there was no evidence that either drug was more effective when administered earlier, or among those with a PTD history.ConclusionsClindamycin, but not metronidazole, was beneficial in studies providing IPD, but after imputing data from missing IPD studies, treatment of BV during pregnancy did not reduce PTD, nor prolong pregnancy, in any subgroup or when started earlier in gestation.

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.

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.

Project description:Background:Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the causal role of vitamin D on noncommunicable disease outcomes is inconclusive. Objective:The aim of this study was to investigate whether there are beneficial or harmful effects of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) supplementation according to subgroups of remeasured serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] on cardiovascular and glucometabolic surrogate markers with the use of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of RCTs. Design:Twelve RCTs (16 wk to 1 y of follow-up) were included. For standardization, 25(OH)D concentrations for all participants (n = 2994) at baseline and postintervention were re-measured in bio-banked serum samples with the use of a certified liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method traceable to a reference measurement procedure. IPD meta-analyses were performed according to subgroups of remeasured 25(OH)D. Main outcomes were blood pressure and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary outcomes were LDL, HDL, and total cholesterol and triglycerides; parathyroid hormone (PTH); fasting glucose, insulin, and C-peptide; and 2-h glucose. In secondary analyses, other potential effect modifiers were studied. Results:Remeasurement of 25(OH)D resulted in a lower mean 25(OH)D concentration in 10 of 12 RCTs. Vitamin D supplementation had no effect on the main outcomes of blood pressure and HbA1c. Supplementation resulted in 10-20% lower PTH concentrations, irrespective of the 25(OH)D subgroups. The subgroup analyses according to achieved 25(OH)D concentrations showed a significant decrease in LDL-cholesterol concentrations after vitamin D supplementation in 25(OH)D subgroups with <75, <100, and <125 nmol of -0.10 mmol/L (95% CI: -0.20, -0.00 mmol/L), -0.10 mmol/L (95% CI: -0.18, -0.02 mmol/L), and -0.07 mmol/L (95% CI: -0.14, -0.00 mmol/L), respectively. Patient features that modified the treatment effect could not be identified. Conclusions:For the main outcomes of blood pressure and HbA1c, the data support no benefit for vitamin D supplementation. For the secondary outcomes, in addition to its effect on PTH, we observed indications for a beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation only on LDL cholesterol, which warrants further investigation. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02551835.

Dataset Information

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent asthma exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

Publications

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent asthma exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets