Benefits and Harms of Edible Vegetable Oils and Fats Fortified with Vitamins A and D as a Public Health Intervention in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Interventions.

This systematic review aims to assess whether edible vegetable oils and fats fortified with vitamin A and/or D are effective and safe in improving vitamin intake and ameliorating deficiency states in the general population. In November 2022, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Global Index Medicus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) investigating the fortification of edible vegetable oils and fats with either vitamin A or vitamin D or both as compared to the same vegetable oils and/or fats without vitamin A and D fortification or no interventions, in the general population, without age restriction. We assessed the methodological quality of included RCTs using Cochrane's risk of bias tool 2.0 and of NRSIs using ROBINS-I tool. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. We included eight studies. Available evidence showed no significant effect of fortification with vitamin A on serum retinol levels (RCTs: MD 0.35 µmol/L, 95% CI -0.43 to 1.12; two trials; 514 participants; low-certainty evidence; CCTs: MD 0.31 µmol/L, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.80; two trials; 205 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and on subclinical vitamin A deficiency. Low-certainty evidence showed no effect of vitamin D fortification on serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D concentration (MD 6.59 nmol/L, 95% CI -6.89 to 20.07; one trial; 62 participants). In conclusion, vitamin A-fortified vegetable oils and fats may result in little to no difference in serum retinol levels in general populations. The dose of vitamin A used in the trials may be safe but may not be sufficient to reduce subclinical vitamin A deficiency. Further, the evidence suggests that vitamin D fortification results in little to no difference in serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D concentration. Several aspects of providing fortified oils and fats to the general population as a public health intervention should be further investigated, including optimal fortification dose, effects on vitamin D deficiency and its clinical symptoms and potential adverse effects.

Health outcomes associated with micronutrient-fortified complementary foods in infants and young children aged 6-23 months: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate feeding of infants and young children is essential for healthy growth and the prevention of stunting, wasting, and overweight. We aimed to assess the beneficial versus harmful effects of providing fortified complementary foods to children in the complementary feeding period. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Index Medicus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to March 9, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials done in infants and children aged 6-23 months with no identified health problems. Consumption of foods fortified centrally (ie, during industrial processing) with one micronutrient or a combination of vitamins, minerals, or both was compared with the same complementary foods, but without micronutrient fortification. Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and rated the certainty of the evidence. The main outcomes were growth (measured by Z scores for weight for age, weight for height or length, and height or length for age, or other growth measures), stunting, wasting, nutrient adequacy or excess, anaemia, haemoglobin concentration, iron status, serum zinc concentration, and serum retinol concentration. We used a random-effects meta-analysis for combining data. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021245876. FINDINGS: We included 16 studies with 6423 participants, 13 of which were done in malaria-endemic areas. Overall, 12 studies were included in the quantitative syntheses. We identified five further ongoing studies. There was no difference between participants who received fortified complementary foods and those who received non-fortified complementary foods in weight-for-age Z scores (mean difference -0·01, 95% CI -0·07 to 0·06; five trials; 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), weight-for-height or length Z scores (-0·05, -0·19 to 0·10; four trials; 1109 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and height or length-for-age Z scores (-0·01, -0·21 to 0·20; four trials; 811 participants; low-certainty evidence); stunting and wasting were not assessed in any study as outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence from six trials with 1209 patients showed that providing fortified complementary foods to children aged 6-23 months reduced the risk of anaemia (risk ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·39 to 0·82). Those who received fortified complementary foods compared with those who did not had higher haemoglobin concentrations (mean difference 3·44 g/L, 95% CI 1·33 to 5·55; 11 trials; 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and ferritin concentration (0·43 µg/L on log scale, 0·14 to 0·72; six trials; 903 participants; low-certainty evidence). The intervention led to no effects on serum zinc concentration (-0·13 g/dL, -0·82 to 0·56; two trials; 333 participants; low-certainty evidence) and serum retinol concentration (0·03 µmol/L, -0·02 to 0·08; five trials; 475 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). INTERPRETATION: Fortified complementary foods are effective strategies to prevent anaemia in infants and young children aged 6-23 months in malaria-endemic regions. Effects of complementary food fortification should be further investigated in low-income and middle-income countries, but should also be assessed in high-income countries, and in regions where malaria is not endemic. FUNDING: WHO.

Vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The role of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment for COVID-19 has been a subject of considerable discussion. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether vitamin D supplementation is effective and safe for the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard of care alone, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 11 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating preventive effects, or studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following prioritised outcome categories: individuals with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events, and for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease: all-cause mortality, development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three RCTs with 356 participants, of whom 183 received vitamin D. In accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale, two studies investigated participants with moderate or severe disease, and one study individuals with mild or asymptomatic disease. The control groups consisted of placebo treatment or standard of care alone. Effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We included two studies with 313 participants. Due to substantial clinical and methodological diversity of both studies, we were not able to pool data. Vitamin D status was unknown in one study, whereas the other study reported data for vitamin D deficient participants. One study administered multiple doses of oral calcifediol at days 1, 3 and 7,  whereas the other study gave a single high dose of oral cholecalciferol at baseline. We assessed one study with low risk of bias for effectiveness outcomes, and the other with some concerns about randomisation and selective reporting. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (313 participants) We found two studies reporting data for this outcome. One study reported no deaths when treated with vitamin D out of 50 participants, compared to two deaths out of 26 participants in the control group (Risk ratio (RR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.13). The other study reported nine deaths out of 119 individuals in the vitamin D group, whereas six participants out of 118 died in the placebo group (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.04]. We are very uncertain whether vitamin D has an effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (very low-certainty evidence). Clinical status assessed by the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (237 participants) We found one study reporting data for this outcome. Nine out of 119 participants needed invasive mechanical ventilation when treated with vitamin D, compared to 17 out of 118 participants in the placebo group (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.13). Vitamin D supplementation may decrease need for invasive mechanical ventilation, but the evidence is uncertain (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life We did not find data for quality of life. Safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We did not include data from one study, because assessment of serious adverse events was not described and we are concerned that data might have been inconsistently measured. This study reported vomiting in one out of 119 participants immediately after vitamin D intake (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.30). We are very uncertain whether vitamin D supplementation is associated with higher risk for adverse events (very low-certainty). Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and asymptomatic or mild disease We found one study including 40 individuals, which did not report our prioritised outcomes, but instead data for viral clearance, inflammatory markers, and vitamin D serum levels. The authors reported no events of hypercalcaemia, but recording and assessment of further adverse events remains unclear. Authors administered oral cholecalciferol in daily doses for at least 14 days, and continued with weekly doses if vitamin D blood levels were > 50 ng/mL. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment of COVID-19. The evidence for the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19 is very uncertain. Moreover, we found only limited safety information, and were concerned about consistency in measurement and recording of these outcomes. There was substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity of included studies, mainly because of different supplementation strategies, formulations, vitamin D status of participants, and reported outcomes. There is an urgent need for well-designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with an appropriate randomisation procedure, comparability of study arms and preferably double-blinding. We identified 21 ongoing and three completed studies without published results, which indicates that these needs will be addressed and that our findings are subject to change in the future. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.

Pioglitazone for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people at risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The term prediabetes is used to describe a population with an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). With projections of an increase in the incidence of T2DM, prevention or delay of the disease and its complications is paramount. It is currently unknown whether pioglitazone is beneficial in the treatment of people with increased risk of developing T2DM. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pioglitazone for prevention or delay of T2DM and its associated complications in people at risk of developing T2DM. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Chinese databases, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We did not apply any language restrictions. Further, we investigated the reference lists of all included studies and reviews. We tried to contact all study authors. The date of the last search of databases was November 2019 (March 2020 for Chinese databases). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimum duration of 24 weeks, and participants diagnosed with intermediate hyperglycaemia with no concomitant diseases, comparing pioglitazone as monotherapy or part of dual therapy with other glucose-lowering drugs, behaviour-changing interventions, placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts, read full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses with a random-effects model and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies with a total of 4186 randomised participants. The size of individual studies ranged between 43 and 605 participants and the duration varied between 6 and 36 months. We judged none of the included studies as having low risk of bias across all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most studies identified people at increased risk of T2DM by impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), or both. Our main outcome measures were all-cause mortality, incidence of T2DM, serious adverse events (SAEs), cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke (NMI/S), health-related quality of life (QoL) and socioeconomic effects. The following comparisons mostly reported only a fraction of our main outcome set. Three studies compared pioglitazone with metformin. They did not report all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, NMI/S, QoL or socioeconomic effects. Incidence of T2DM was 9/168 participants in the pioglitazone groups versus 9/163 participants in the metformin groups (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.38; P = 0.96; 3 studies, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). No SAEs were reported in two studies (201 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study compared pioglitazone with acarbose. Incidence of T2DM was 1/50 participants in the pioglitazone group versus 2/46 participants in the acarbose group (very low-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a SAE (very low-certainty evidence).One study compared pioglitazone with repaglinide. Incidence of T2DM was 2/48 participants in the pioglitazone group versus 1/48 participants in the repaglinide group (low-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a SAE (low-certainty evidence). One study compared pioglitazone with a personalised diet and exercise consultation. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality, NMI/S, QoL or socioeconomic effects were not reported. Incidence of T2DM was 2/48 participants in the pioglitazone group versus 5/48 participants in the diet and exercise consultation group (low-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a SAE (low-certainty evidence). Six studies compared pioglitazone with placebo. No study reported on QoL or socioeconomic effects. All-cause mortality was 5/577 participants the in the pioglitazone groups versus 2/579 participants in the placebo groups (Peto odds ratio 2.38, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.50; P = 0.25; 4 studies, 1156 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Incidence of T2DM was 80/700 participants in the pioglitazone groups versus 131/695 participants in the placebo groups (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.95; P = 0.04; 6 studies, 1395 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were 3/93 participants with SAEs in the pioglitazone groups versus 1/94 participants in the placebo groups (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.22; P = 0.34; 2 studies, 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, the largest study for this comparison did not distinguish between serious and non-serious adverse events. This study reported that 121/303 (39.9%) participants in the pioglitazone group versus 151/299 (50.5%) participants in the placebo group experienced an adverse event (P = 0.03). One study observed cardiovascular mortality in 2/181 participants in the pioglitazone group versus 0/186 participants in the placebo group (RR 5.14, 95% CI 0.25 to 106.28; P = 0.29; very low-certainty evidence). One study observed NMI in 2/303 participants in the pioglitazone group versus 1/299 participants in the placebo group (RR 1.97: 95% CI 0.18 to 21.65; P = 0.58; very low-certainty evidence). Twenty-one studies compared pioglitazone with no intervention. No study reported on cardiovascular mortality, NMI/S, QoL or socioeconomic effects. All-cause mortality was 11/441 participants in the pioglitazone groups versus 12/425 participants in the no-intervention groups (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.91; P = 0.70; 3 studies, 866 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Incidence of T2DM was 60/1034 participants in the pioglitazone groups versus 197/1019 participants in the no-intervention groups (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.40; P < 0.001; 16 studies, 2053 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Studies reported SAEs in 16/610 participants in the pioglitazone groups versus 21/601 participants in the no-intervention groups (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; P = 0.28; 7 studies, 1211 participants; low-certainty evidence). We identified two ongoing studies, comparing pioglitazone with placebo and with other glucose-lowering drugs. These studies, with 2694 participants. may contribute evidence to future updates of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pioglitazone reduced or delayed the development of T2DM in people at increased risk of T2DM compared with placebo (low-certainty evidence) and compared with no intervention (moderate-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether the effect of pioglitazone is sustained once discontinued. Pioglitazone compared with metformin neither showed advantage nor disadvantage regarding the development of T2DM in people at increased risk (low-certainty evidence). The data and reporting of all-cause mortality, SAEs, micro- and macrovascular complications were generally sparse. None of the included studies reported on QoL or socioeconomic effects.