Serum 25(OH)D Concentration, Vitamin D Supplementation, and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes or Prediabetes: a Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is uncertain about the association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration and health outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the association between vitamin D status and all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We did a systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science until May 2022. We selected 1) cohort studies investigating the association between serum 25(OH)D concentration and mortality or cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes and 2) randomized trials of vitamin D supplementation in these patients. We used random-effects pairwise meta-analyses to calculate summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: 21 cohort studies and 6 randomized trials were included. Compared with sufficient vitamin D status (≥50 nmol/L), the RR of all-cause mortality was 1.36 (95% CI: 1.23, 1.49; n = 11 studies, GRADE = moderate) for vitamin D insufficiency (25 to <50 nmol/L), and 1.58 (1.33, 1.83; n = 16, GRADE = moderate) for deficiency (<25 nmol/L). Similar findings were observed for cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but not for cancer mortality. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Dose-response meta-analyses indicated nonlinear associations, with the lowest risk at 25(OH)D ∼60 nmol/L for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Supplementation with vitamin D did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.79, 1.16; risk difference per 1000 patients: 3 fewer, 95% CI: 16 fewer, 12 more; n = 6 trials with 7316 participants; GRADE = low) or the risk of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity (very low- to low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency are associated with a higher risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes. Vitamin D deficiency should be corrected in patients with type 2 diabetes to reach normal serum 25(OH)D concentrations, preferably 60 nmol/L. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systemic review was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42022326429 (=https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=326429).

Efficacy of vitamin D3 supplementation on cancer mortality: Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

To evaluate the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on cancer mortality in the general population and on prognosis in cancer patients, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) and individual patient data (IPD) was conducted. Overall, 14 RCTs with a total of 104,727 participants (2015 cancer deaths) were identified and 7 RCTs, including 90 % of all study participants (n = 94,068), could be included in the IPD meta-analyses. The main meta-analysis of the 14 RCTs yielded a statistically non-significant reduction in cancer mortality by 6 % (risk ratio (RR) [95%-confidence interval (95%CI)]: 0.94 [0.86-1.02]). Subgroup analyses revealed a 12 % lower cancer mortality in the vitamin D3 group compared with the placebo group in 10 trials with a daily dosing regimen (RR [95%CI]: 0.88 [0.78-0.98]), whereas no mortality reduction was seen in 4 trials using a bolus regimen (RR [95%CI]: 1.07 [0.91-1.24]; p-value for interaction: 0.042). The IPD meta-analysis (RR [95%CI]: 0.93 [0.84; 1.02]) confirmed the finding of all trials. The IPD were used to test effect modification by age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration, adherence and cancer-related factors but no statistically significant findings were obtained in meta-analyses of all trials. When restricted to trials with daily dosing in a post-hoc analysis, adults aged ≥ 70 years (RR [95%CI]: 0.83 [0.77; 0.98]) and subjects with vitamin D3 therapy initiation before cancer diagnosis (RR [95%CI]: 0.87 [0.69; 0.99]) appeared to benefit most from daily vitamin D3 supplementation. Measurements of baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and inclusion of other than non-Hispanic White adults were too sparse in the trials to draw conclusions. Results for all-cause and cancer-specific survival of participants with cancer were comparable to those obtained in the general population for cancer mortality. In conclusion, vitamin D3 did not reduce cancer mortality in the main meta-analysis of all RCTs because the observed risk reduction by 6 % was not statistically significant. However, a subgroup analysis revealed that vitamin D3 administered daily, in contrast to bolus supplementation, reduced cancer mortality by 12 %.

Prediction of Vitamin D Deficiency in Older Adults: The Role of Machine Learning Models.

CONTEXT: Conventional prediction models for vitamin D deficiency have limited accuracy. BACKGROUND: Using cross-sectional data, we developed models based on machine learning (ML) and compared their performance with those based on a conventional approach. METHODS: Participants were 5106 community-resident adults (50-84 years; 58% male). In the randomly sampled training set (65%), we constructed 5 ML models: lasso regression, elastic net regression, random forest, gradient boosted decision tree, and dense neural network. The reference model was a logistic regression model. Outcomes were deseasonalized serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) <50 nmol/L (yes/no) and <25 nmol/L (yes/no). In the test set (the remaining 35%), we evaluated predictive performance of each model, including area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and net benefit (decision curves). RESULTS: Overall, 1270 (25%) and 91 (2%) had 25(OH)D <50 and <25 nmol/L, respectively. Compared with the reference model, the ML models predicted 25(OH)D <50 nmol/L with similar accuracy. However, for prediction of 25(OH)D <25 nmol/L, all ML models had higher AUC point estimates than the reference model by up to 0.14. AUC was highest for elastic net regression (0.93; 95% CI 0.90-0.96), compared with 0.81 (95% CI 0.71-0.91) for the reference model. In the decision curve analysis, ML models mostly achieved a greater net benefit across a range of thresholds. CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional models, ML models predicted 25(OH)D <50 nmol/L with similar accuracy but they predicted 25(OH)D <25 nmol/L with greater accuracy. The latter finding suggests a role for ML models in participant selection for vitamin D supplement trials.

Effect of monthly vitamin D supplementation on cardiac biomarkers: A post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

The effects of vitamin D supplementation on cardiovascular diseases are controversial. Data on effects of vitamin D upon cardiac biomarkers, as surrogate endpoints of cardiovascular diseases, are limited and inconclusive. Therefore, we carried out a post-hoc analysis of sub-samples of a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial with community-based older adults who were randomized to receive monthly 100,000-IU vitamin D or placebo, to determine effect of monthly vitamin D supplementation on high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI), troponin T (hs-cTnT) and N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Adjusted relative difference (aRD) of follow-up geometric mean of biomarkers and adjusted relative risk (aRR) of elevated biomarkers between two groups were calculated. A total of 779 participants aged 50-84 y, randomized to vitamin D (n = 395) or placebo (n = 384) groups underwent sampling for measurement of plasma biomarkers at baseline and after one or two years treatment. Over a mean follow-up of 1.6 years, we did not find significant relative difference of geometric mean levels of three biomarkers at follow-up between vitamin D and placebo groups: hs-cTnI (aRD=1.03, 95%CI=0.97-1.09), hs-cTnT (aRD=0.99, 95%CI=0.95-1.04), and NT-proBNP (aRD=1.01, 95%CI=0.92-1.10). No significant differences were found in likelihood of clinically elevated biomarkers between two groups: hs-cTnI (aRR=0.92, 95%CI=0.51-1.69), hs-cTnT (aRR=1.11, 95%CI=0.86-1.42), and NT-proBNP (aRR=1.03,95%CI=0.89-1.20). However, among participants with initial low vitamin D status (<50 nmol/L, n = 200), follow-up NT-proBNP were significantly lower in the vitamin D group compared to placebo (geometric mean 75.9 vs 94.5 pg/mL, respectively; aRD=0.84, 95%CI=0.71-<1.00). The same results were observed for the NT-proBNP levels change from baseline between two groups. Overall, in older adults, monthly vitamin D supplementation did not reduce concentrations of hs-cTnI, hs-cTnT, and NT-proBNP. In those with low vitamin D status, vitamin D treatment was associated, on follow up and change from baseline, with lower plasma NT-proBNP compared with placebo. This potentially signals reduced risk of subsequent heart failure within this sub-group. However, we acknowledge that these findings need to be considered exploratory. Further research is required to replicate them.

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.

Effect of monthly vitamin D supplementation on antibiotic prescribing in older adults: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have reported that low vitamin D status is associated with increased risk of antibiotic use. However, trials on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on antibiotics are limited and inconclusive. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to determine the effect of monthly vitamin D supplementation on the proportion of adults with ≥1 prescriptions of antibiotics. The secondary outcomes were to determine the effect of monthly vitamin D supplementation on the number of antibiotic prescriptions and the number of days on antibiotics. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial with community-based older adults who were randomly assigned to receive monthly 100,000 IU of vitamin D or identical placebo. All analyses were based on the principle of "intention to treat." RR from log-binomial models and the incidence rate ratio (IRR) from negative binomial models were estimated for primary and secondary outcomes after adjusting for age, sex, and ethnicity. RESULTS: A total of 5108 participants aged 50-84 y were randomly assigned to vitamin D supplementation (n = 2558) or placebo (n = 2550) groups. During a median follow-up of 3.3 y, 4211 (82%) participants were prescribed antibiotics. There was no difference in the proportion of participants prescribed antibiotics between vitamin D (82%) and placebo (83%) groups (adjusted RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.01; P = 0.42). Similarly, the number of antibiotic prescriptions per person-year did not differ between the 2 treatment groups (adjusted IRR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.04; P = 0.58). However, the number of days on antibiotics per person-year was significantly lower in the vitamin D group (mean ± SEM: 15 ± 0.7) compared with the placebo group (mean ± SEM: 17 ± 0.8) (adjusted IRR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.82, 0.98; P = 0.01), especially for the tetracyclines (IRR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.85; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term, monthly, high-dose vitamin D3 supplementation did not prevent antibiotic prescribing in older adults, but the vitamin D group had fewer days per person-year on antibiotics. Further research is required to replicate these findings. This trial was registered at www.anzctr.org.au as ACTRN12611000402943.

Vitamin D and Clinical Cancer Outcomes: A Review of Meta-Analyses.

The relationship between vitamin D status or supplementation and cancer outcomes has been examined in several meta-analyses. To address remaining knowledge gaps, we conducted a systematic overview and critical appraisal of pertinent meta-analyses. For meta-analyses of trials, we assessed their quality using AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews), strength of associations using umbrella review methodology and credibility of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria. Meta-analyses of observational studies reported inverse associations of 25OHD with risk of cancer incidence and cancer mortality and, particularly for colorectal cancer, fulfilled some of Bradford-Hill's causation criteria. In meta-analyses of trials, vitamin D supplementation did not affect cancer incidence. However, we found credible evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduced total cancer mortality risk, with five out of six meta-analyses reporting a relative risk (RR) reduction of up to 16%: RR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.74-0.95). The strength of the association, however, was classified as weak. This was true among meta-analyses of high, moderate, and lower quality (AMSTAR-2-rated). Trials did not include large numbers of vitamin D-deficient participants; many tested relatively low doses and lacked sufficiently powered data on site-specific cancers. In conclusion, meta-analyses show that, although observational evidence indicates that low vitamin D status is associated with a higher risk of cancer outcomes, randomized trials show that vitamin D supplementation reduces total cancer mortality, but not cancer incidence. However, trials with larger proportions of vitamin D-insufficient participants and longer durations of follow-up, plus adequately powered data on site-specific common cancers, would provide further insight into the evidence base. © 2020 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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.

Effect of Monthly Vitamin D Supplementation on Preventing Exacerbations of Asthma or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Older Adults: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Randomized controlled trials have suggested that vitamin D supplementation can prevent asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. For COPD, the benefit appears to be limited to individuals with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels <25 nmol/L. We performed a post hoc analysis of data from a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the effect that monthly, high-dose vitamin D supplementation (versus placebo) had on older adults with asthma and/or COPD. Specifically, we investigated whether vitamin D supplementation prevented exacerbations of these conditions. Participants were randomly assigned either to an initial oral dose of 200,000 IU vitamin D3 followed by 100,000 IU monthly or to placebo, with an average follow-up period of 3.3 years. Among the 5110 participants, 775 had asthma or COPD at the beginning of the study, and were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Exacerbations were defined by the prescription of a short-burst of oral corticosteroids. The mean age of the participants was 67 years old, and 56% were male. The mean baseline blood 25OHD level was 63 nmol/L; 2.3% were <25 nmol/L. Overall, we found that vitamin D supplementation did not affect the exacerbation risk (hazard ratio 1.08; 95%CI 0.84-1.39). Among those with baseline 25OHD <25 nmol/L, however, the hazard ratio was 0.11 (95%CI 0.02-0.51); p for interaction = 0.001. Although monthly vitamin D supplementation had no overall impact on risk of exacerbations of asthma or COPD, we found evidence of a probable benefit among those with severe vitamin D deficiency.

Effect of monthly vitamin D on diverticular disease hospitalization: Post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Some studies have linked low vitamin D status and high risk of diverticular disease, but the causal relationship between vitamin D and diverticular disease remains unclear; clinical trial data are warranted. The objective was to assess the efficacy of vitamin D3 supplementation on diverticular disease hospitalization. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of a community-based randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial (RCT) with 5108 participants randomized to receive monthly 100,000 IU vitamin D (n = 2558) or identical placebo (n = 2550). The outcome was time to first diverticular disease hospitalization from randomization to the end of intervention (July 2015), including a prespecified subgroup analysis in participants with baseline deseasonalized 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels < 50 nmol/L. RESULTS: Over a median of 3.3 years follow-up, 74 participants had diverticular disease hospitalization. There was no difference in the risk of diverticular disease hospitalization between vitamin D supplementation (35/2558 = 1.4%) and placebo (39/2550 = 1.5%) groups (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.90; p = 0.65), although in participants with deseasonalized 25(OH)D < 50 nmol/L (n = 1272), the risk was significantly lower in the vitamin D group than placebo (HR = 0.08, p = 0.02). DISCUSSION: Monthly 100,000 IU vitamin D3 does not reduce the risk of diverticular disease hospitalization in the general population. Further RCTs are required to investigate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the diverticular disease in participants with low 25(OH)D levels.

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.

A prediction tool for vitamin D deficiency in New Zealand adults.

PURPOSE: This study aims to develop a model for predicting vitamin D deficiency in New Zealand adults using easily accessible clinical characteristics. METHODS: Data were derived from the Vitamin D Assessment (ViDA) study dataset. Included participants in the main analysis were aged 50-84 years and resided in Auckland, New Zealand. The dataset was split into a discovery dataset in which the prediction model was developed (n = 2036) and a validation dataset in which it was tested (n = 2037). The prediction model was developed using clinical characteristics in a logistic regression analysis with deseasonalised serum 25OHD (DS-25OHD) as the dependent variable. RESULTS: DS-25OHD < 40 nmol/L was found in 8.2% of European participants, 18.8% of Maori participants, 23.1% of Pacific participants and 52.2% of South Asian participants. Predictors for DS-25OHD < 40 nmol/L in the European sub-cohort included increasing age, female sex, higher body mass index, current smoking, no alcohol intake, lower self-reported general health status, lower physical activity hours, lower outdoor hours and no use of vitamin D-containing supplementation. The area under the curve in the discovery dataset was 0.73, and in the validation dataset was 0.71. Of those with a prediction score ≥ 10 (total risk score range 0-21.5), the sensitivity and specificity for predicting vitamin D deficiency was 0.90 and 0.41, respectively. CONCLUSION: Non-European ethnicity is an important risk factor for vitamin D deficiency. Our vitamin D deficiency prediction model performed well and demonstrates its potential as a tool that can be integrated into clinical practice for the prediction of vitamin D deficiency.

What factors modify the effect of monthly bolus dose vitamin D supplementation on 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations?

The increasing use of vitamin D supplements has stimulated interest in identifying factors that may modify the effect of supplementation on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations. Such information is of potential interest to researchers, clinicians and patients when deciding on bolus dose of vitamin D supplementation. We carried out a large randomized controlled trial of 5110 adults aged 50-84 years, of European/Other (84%), Polynesian (11%) and Asian (5%) ethnicity, to whom we gave a standard dose of vitamin D3 supplements (200,000 IU initially, then 100,000 IU monthly) which was taken with high adherence. All participants provided a baseline blood sample, and follow-up blood samples were collected at 6 months and annually for 3 years in a random sample of 441 participants, and also at 2 years in 413 participants enrolled in a bone density sub-study. Serum 25(OH)D was measured by LC/MSMS. Mixed model analyses were carried out on all 854 participants providing follow-up blood samples in multivariable models that included age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index (kg/m2), tobacco smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, sun exposure, season, medical prescription of high-dose vitamin D3 (Cal.D.Forte tablets), asthma/COPD and the study treatment (vitamin D or placebo). The adjusted mean difference in 25(OH)D in the follow-up points between vitamin D supplementation and placebo groups was inversely related (all p for interaction <0.05) to baseline 25(OH)D, BMI, and hours of sun exposure, and higher in females, elders, and those with high frequency of alcohol, medical prescription of vitamin D, and asthma/COPD. The mean difference was not significantly related to ethnicity (p = 0.12), tobacco (p = 0.34), and vigorous activity (p = 0.33). In summary, these data show that vitamin D status, BMI, sun exposure hours, sex and asthma/COPD modify the 25(OH)D response to vitamin D supplementation. By contrast, ethnicity, tobacco smoking, and vigorous activity do not.

Effect of Monthly High-Dose Vitamin D Supplementation on Acute Respiratory Infections in Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although adults with low vitamin D status are at increased risk of acute respiratory infection (ARI), randomized controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation have provided inconsistent results. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 5110 adults aged 50-84 years. In 2011-2012, participants were randomized to an initial oral dose of 200 000 IU vitamin D3 followed by 100 000 IU monthly (n = 2558) or placebo (n = 2552) until late 2013 (median follow-up, 1.6 years). Participants reported upper and lower ARIs on monthly questionnaires. Cox models analyzed time to first ARI (upper or lower) by treatment group. RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 66 years and 58% were male; 83% were of European/other ethnicity, with the rest Maori, Polynesian, or South Asian. Mean (SD) baseline blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level was 63 (24) nmol/L; 25% were <50 nmol/L. In a random sample (n = 441), vitamin D supplementation increased mean 25(OH)D to 135 nmol/L at 3 years, while those on placebo remained at 63 nmol/L. During follow-up, 3737 participants reported ≥1 ARI: 74.1% in the vitamin D group versus 73.7% in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for vitamin D compared with placebo was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.94, 1.07). Similar results were seen in most subgroups, including those with baseline 25(OH)D <50 nmol/L and in analyses of the upper/lower components of the ARI outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Monthly high-dose vitamin D supplementation does not prevent ARI in older adults with a low prevalence of profound vitamin D deficiency at baseline. Whether effects of daily or weekly dosing differ requires further study. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, identifier ACTRN12611000402943.

Cross-sectional associations of vitamin D status with asthma prevalence, exacerbations, and control in New Zealand adults.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies, mostly with children, have reported inconsistent findings on the associations of vitamin D status with asthma prevalence, exacerbations, and control. Because of limited research with adults, we examined these associations in a large community-based sample of New Zealand adults. METHODS: 5110 participants, aged 50-84 years, were recruited from the community into a clinical trial of vitamin D supplementation. The current analysis is based on baseline blood sample collection to measure serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), which was deseasonalized for data analyses; and baseline asthma assessment, which included questions on asthma prevalence, urgent medical care for asthma in the previous 12 months, and control of asthma symptoms in the previous 4 weeks. RESULTS: 702 (13.2%) of 5088 participants reported having doctor-diagnosed asthma. There was no difference in mean (SE) 25(OH)D concentration between participants with and without asthma: 66 (0.9) and 66 (0.4) nmol/L, respectively, adjusting for sex (p = 0.71). However, in multivariable analyses restricted to participants who reported having asthma, mean (SE) 25(OH)D concentration was 6.3 (2.6) nmol/L lower in those who reported having urgent medical care for asthma in the previous 12 months compared to others (p = 0.02), and 10.4 (3.9) nmol/L lower in those with very poor asthma control compared to those who were well-controlled (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: These cross-sectional results suggest that asthmatic adults with lower vitamin D status are more likely to receive urgent asthma medical care and to experience poor asthma control. Clinical trials are needed to determine the role of vitamin D supplementation in asthma management.

Association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and self-reported chronic pain in older adults: A cross-sectional analysis from the ViDA study.

Chronic pain is a major contributor to the global burden of disability. Prior studies on the association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels and chronic pain have yielded mixed results. The Vitamin D Assessment study, a large randomized controlled trial from New Zealand, offered the opportunity to examine this association in data collected at baseline in all participants, and among those with arthritis or depression. A total of 5110 participants aged 50-84 years were recruited from community general practices. Chronic pain (lasting ≥6 months) and other baseline characteristics were collected at baseline interview. Serum 25(OH)D concentration was measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Associations between 25(OH)D levels and chronic pain were explored using multivariable log-binomial regression to estimate relative risks (RRs). Out of 5049 participants with complete data, 871 (17%) reported having this clinical outcome, and 1254 (25%) had a 25(OH)D concentration <50 nmol/L. There was no significant association between 25(OH)D and chronic pain, with vitamin D status categorized in four groups: <25.0, 25.0-49.9, 50.0-74.9, and ≥75.0 nmol/L (the highest group as reference). The unadjusted RRs were 1.09, 1.10, and 1.08, respectively (Ptrend = 0.24). Adjustment for demographics, lifestyle, BMI, medical history, prescription of analgesics and vitamin D supplements did not change this finding. Similar non-significant results were observed in participants with arthritis (n = 1732) or depression (n = 528). In this multi-ethnic, community-selected sample of older adults in New Zealand, serum 25(OH)D levels were not associated with chronic pain. These results do not support a role for low vitamin D status in the prevalence of chronic pain in older adults.

Monthly High-Dose Vitamin D Supplementation and Cancer Risk: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Vitamin D Assessment Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Previous randomized clinical trials have reported inconsistent results on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on cancer incidence. Objective: To examine whether high-dose vitamin D supplementation received monthly, without calcium, is associated with a reduction in cancer incidence and cancer mortality in the general population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc analysis of data from the Vitamin D Assessment (ViDA) study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that recruited participants from family practices and community groups in Auckland, New Zealand, from April 5, 2011, through November 6, 2012, with follow-up completed December 31, 2015. Participants were adult community residents aged 50 to 84 years. Of 47 905 adults invited from family practices and 163 from community groups, 5110 participants were randomized to receive vitamin D3 (n = 2558) or placebo (n = 2552). Two participants withdrew consent, and all others (n = 5108) were included in the primary analysis. Data analysis was by intention to treat. Interventions: Oral vitamin D3, in an initial bolus dose of 200 000 IU and followed by monthly doses of 100 000 IU, or placebo for a median of 3.3 years (range, 2.5-4.2 years). Main Outcomes and Measures: Post hoc primary outcome was the number of all primary invasive and in situ malignant neoplasms (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers) diagnosed from randomization until the study medication was discontinued on July 31, 2015. Results: Of the 5108 participants included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 65.9 (8.3) years, 58.1% were male, and 4253 (83.3%) were of European or another race/ethnicity, with the remainder being Polynesian or South Asian. Mean (SD) baseline deseasonalized 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration was 26.5 (9.0) ng/mL. In a random sample of 438 participants, the mean follow-up 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration consistently was greater than 20 ng/mL higher in the vitamin D group than in the placebo group. The primary outcome of cancer comprised 328 total cases of cancer (259 invasive and 69 in situ malignant neoplasms) and occurred in 165 of 2558 participants (6.5%) in the vitamin D group and 163 of 2550 (6.4%) in the placebo group, yielding an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.01 (95% CI, 0.81-1.25; P = .95). Conclusions and Relevance: High-dose vitamin D supplementation prescribed monthly for up to 4 years without calcium may not prevent cancer. This study suggests that daily or weekly dosing for a longer period may require further study. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12611000402943.

Effect of Monthly, High-Dose, Long-Term Vitamin D on Lung Function: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Although observational studies suggest positive vitamin D-lung function associations, randomized trials are inconsistent. We examined effects of vitamin D supplementation on lung function. We recruited 442 adults (50-84 years, 58% male) into a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Participants received, for 1.1 years (median; range = 0.9-1.5 years), either (1) vitamin D3 200,000 IU, followed by monthly 100,000 IU doses (n = 226); or (2) placebo monthly (n = 216). At baseline and follow-up, spirometry yielded forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1; primary outcome). Mean (standard deviation) 25-hydroxyvitamin D increased from 61 (24) nmol/L at baseline to 119 (45) nmol/L at follow-up in the vitamin D group, but was unchanged in the placebo group. There were no significant lung function improvements (vitamin D versus placebo) in the total sample, vitamin D-deficient participants or asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) participants. However, among ever-smokers (n = 217), the mean (95% confidence interval) FEV1 increase in the vitamin D versus placebo was 57 (4, 109) mL (p = 0.03). FEV1 increases were larger among vitamin D-deficient ever-smokers (n = 54): 122 (8, 236) mL (p = 0.04). FEV1 improvements were largest among ever-smokers with asthma/COPD (n = 60): 160 (53, 268) mL (p = 0.004). Thus, vitamin D supplementation did not improve lung function among everyone, but benefited ever-smokers, especially those with vitamin D deficiency or asthma/COPD.

Effect of Monthly, High-Dose, Long-Term Vitamin D Supplementation on Central Blood Pressure Parameters: A Randomized Controlled Trial Substudy.

BACKGROUND: The effects of monthly, high-dose, long-term (≥1-year) vitamin D supplementation on central blood pressure (BP) parameters are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 517 adults (58% male, aged 50-84 years) were recruited into a double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial substudy and randomized to receive, for 1.1 years (median; range: 0.9-1.5 years), either (1) vitamin D3 200 000 IU (initial dose) followed 1 month later by monthly 100 000-IU doses (n=256) or (2) placebo monthly (n=261). At baseline (n=517) and follow-up (n=380), suprasystolic oscillometry was undertaken, yielding aortic BP waveforms and hemodynamic parameters. Mean deseasonalized 25-hydroxyvitamin D increased from 66 nmol/L (SD: 24) at baseline to 122 nmol/L (SD: 42) at follow-up in the vitamin D group, with no change in the placebo group. Despite small, nonsignificant changes in hemodynamic parameters in the total sample (primary outcome), we observed consistently favorable changes among the 150 participants with vitamin D deficiency (<50 nmol/L) at baseline. In this subgroup, mean changes in the vitamin D group (n=71) versus placebo group (n=79) were -5.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -11.8 to 1.3) for brachial systolic BP (P=0.11), -2.8 mm Hg (95% CI, -6.2 to 0.7) for brachial diastolic BP (P=0.12), -7.5 mm Hg (95% CI, -14.4 to -0.6) for aortic systolic BP (P=0.03), -5.7 mm Hg (95% CI, -10.8 to -0.6) for augmentation index (P=0.03), -0.3 m/s (95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1) for pulse wave velocity (P=0.02), -8.6 mm Hg (95% CI, -15.4 to -1.9) for peak reservoir pressure (P=0.01), and -3.6 mm Hg (95% CI, -6.3 to -0.8) for backward pressure amplitude (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Monthly, high-dose, 1-year vitamin D supplementation lowered central BP parameters among adults with vitamin D deficiency but not in the total sample. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au. Unique identifier: ACTRN12611000402943.

Effect of Monthly High-Dose Vitamin D Supplementation on Cardiovascular Disease in the Vitamin D Assessment Study : A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Cohort studies have reported increased incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among individuals with low vitamin D status. To date, randomized clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation have not found an effect, possibly because of using too low a dose of vitamin D. Objective: To examine whether monthly high-dose vitamin D supplementation prevents CVD in the general population. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Vitamin D Assessment Study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that recruited participants mostly from family practices in Auckland, New Zealand, from April 5, 2011, through November 6, 2012, with follow-up until July 2015. Participants were community-resident adults aged 50 to 84 years. Of 47 905 adults invited from family practices and 163 from community groups, 5110 participants were randomized to receive vitamin D3 (n = 2558) or placebo (n = 2552). Two participants retracted consent, and all others (n = 5108) were included in the primary analysis. Interventions: Oral vitamin D3 in an initial dose of 200 000 IU, followed a month later by monthly doses of 100 000 IU, or placebo for a median of 3.3 years (range, 2.5-4.2 years). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of participants with incident CVD and death, including a prespecified subgroup analysis in participants with vitamin D deficiency (baseline deseasonalized 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels <20 ng/mL). Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, hypertension, arrhythmias, arteriosclerosis, stroke, and venous thrombosis. Results: Of the 5108 participants included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 65.9 (8.3) years, 2969 (58.1%) were male, and 4253 (83.3%) were of European or other ethnicity, with the remainder being Polynesian or South Asian. Mean (SD) baseline deseasonalized 25(OH)D concentration was 26.5 (9.0) ng/mL, with 1270 participants (24.9%) being vitamin D deficient. In a random sample of 438 participants, the mean follow-up 25(OH)D level was greater than 20 ng/mL higher in the vitamin D group than in the placebo group. The primary outcome of CVD occurred in 303 participants (11.8%) in the vitamin D group and 293 participants (11.5%) in the placebo group, yielding an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.87-1.20). Similar results were seen for participants with baseline vitamin D deficiency and for secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Monthly high-dose vitamin D supplementation does not prevent CVD. This result does not support the use of monthly vitamin D supplementation for this purpose. The effects of daily or weekly dosing require further study. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: ACTRN12611000402943.