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%, pheterogeneity=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%, pheterogeneity=0·003), at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (0·70 [0·55-0·89]; ten studies; I2=31·2%, pheterogeneity=0·16), for a duration of 12 months or less (0·82 [0·72-0·93]; 29 studies; I2=38·1%, pheterogeneity=0·021), and to participants aged 1·00-15·99 years at enrolment (0·71 [0·57-0·90]; 15 studies; I2=46·0%, pheterogeneity=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%, pheterogeneity=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.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials demonstrating improved longevity are needed to justify high-dose vitamin D supplementation for older populations. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the feasibility of a large trial (n ≈ 20,000) of high-dose vitamin D in people aged 65-84 years through general practitioner (GP) practices, and to cluster randomise participating practices between open-label and double-blind randomisation to compare effects on recruitment, compliance and contamination. DESIGN: Twenty GP practices were randomised in matched pairs between open-label and double-blind allocation. Within each practice, patients were individually randomised to vitamin D or control (i.e. no treatment or placebo). Participants were invited to attend their GP practice to provide a blood sample and complete a lifestyle questionnaire at recruitment and again at 2 years. Randomisation by telephone followed receipt of a serum corrected calcium assay confirming eligibility (< 2.65 nmol/l). Treatment compliance was reported by quarterly follow-up forms sent and returned by e-mail or post (participant choice). GP visits and infections were abstracted from GP records. Hospital attendances, cancer diagnoses and deaths were ascertained by linkage to Hospital Episode Statistics and national registration through NHS Digital. SETTING: GP practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: Recruitment opened in October 2013 and closed in January 2015. A total of 1615 registered patients aged 65-84 years were randomised: 407 to vitamin D and 421 to no treatment in open practices; 395 to vitamin D and 392 to placebo in blind practices. INTERVENTIONS: There was a 24-month treatment period: 12 monthly doses (100,000 IU of vitamin D3 or placebo as 5 ml oily solution) were posted after randomisation and at 1 year (100,000 IU per month corresponds to 3300 IU per day). Reminders were sent monthly by e-mail, text message or post. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recruitment, compliance, contamination and change in circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] from baseline to 2 years. RESULTS: Participation rates (randomised/invited) were 15.0% in open practices and 13.4% in double-blind practices (p = 0.7). The proportion still taking study medication at 2 years was 91.2% in open practices and 89.2% in double-blind practices (p = 0.4). The proportion of control participants taking > 400 IU vitamin D per day at 2 years was 5.0% in open practices and 4.8% in double-blind practices. Mean serum 25(OH)D concentration was 51.5 nmol/l [95% confidence interval (CI) 50.2 to 52.8 nmol/l] with 82.6% of participants < 75 nmol/l at baseline. At 2 years, this increased to 109.6 nmol/l (95% CI 107.1 to 112.1 nmol/l) with 12.0% < 75 nmol/l in those allocated to vitamin D and was unaltered at 51.8 nmol/l (95% CI 49.8 to 53.8 nmol/l) in those allocated to no vitamin D (no treatment or placebo). CONCLUSIONS: A trial could recruit 20,000 participants aged 65-84 years through 200 GP practices over 2 years. Approximately 80% would be expected to adhere to allocated treatment (vitamin D or placebo) for 5 years. The trial could be conducted entirely by e-mail in participants aged < 80 years, but some participants aged 80-84 years would require postal follow-up. Recruitment and treatment compliance would be similar and contamination (self-administration of vitamin D) would be minimal, whether control participants are randomised openly to no treatment with no contact during the trial or randomised double-blind to placebo with monthly reminders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46328341 and EudraCT database 2011-003699-34. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

High-dose vitamin D may reduce the risk of many diseases, but without large randomised controlled trials the evidence will remain inconclusive. We therefore proposed the Vitamin D and Longevity (VIDAL) trial, with 20,000 older people randomised to either no vitamin D medication or vitamin D medication for 5 years. The VIDAL feasibility study was conducted to establish the procedures required for the main trial, including assessment of recruitment, compliance (taking study treatment as directed) and contamination (how many control participants started taking vitamin D). This was done in two sets of general practitioner (GP) practices: (1) 'open' practices, in which participants knew their treatment allocation (2 years of 100,000 IU vitamin D monthly or no treatment), and (2) 'double-blind' practices, in which participants and their GPs did not know whether they were taking vitamin D or placebo oil. We invited 11,376 men and women aged 65­84 years from 20 GP practices in England and 1615 (14%) took part. Ninety per cent of participants allocated to monthly oil took it for 2 years and few participants used vitamin supplements outside the trial, with no marked differences between open-label and double-blind arms. The best way to conduct the main trial will therefore depend on other considerations. A double-blind trial provides reliable evidence on effects where reporting could be influenced by you or your doctor knowing your treatment, which is important for many illnesses and any side effects of treatment. However, any long-term effects are likely to be considerably greater if treatment continues instead of stopping after 5 years when the main trial ends. An open trial is easier to conduct and, when it ends, those taking vitamin D can be offered a continuing supply so that the effect of lifelong treatment can be studied for major diseases and life expectancy, which are unlikely to be affected by individuals knowing whether or not they are taking vitamin D.