Vitamin D Supplementation and the Incidence of Fractures in the Elderly Healthy Population: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Although a well-established component of bone metabolism, the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of fractures in elderly healthy individuals is still unclear. PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis comparing vitamin D supplementation with placebo and its contributions on fracture incidence. METHODS: This meta-analysis was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), under protocol CRD42023484979. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases from inception to November 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamin D supplementation versus placebo in individuals with 60 years of age or more and without bone related medical conditions such as cancer and osteoporosis. RESULTS: Seven RCTs with 71,899 patients were included, of whom 36,822 (51.2%) were women. There was no significant difference in total fracture incidence (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.93-1.14; p = 0.56; I2 = 58%) between groups or subgroups. However, women had an increased risk for hip fractures (164 vs. 121 events; RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.06-1.70; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference in non-vertebral fractures, osteoporotic fractures development, or falls (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.94-1.12; p = 0.6; I2 = 47%; RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.87-1.08; p = 0.63; I2 = 0%; RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.97-1.04; p = 0.66; I2 = 55%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Vitamin D supplementation does not reduce the total fracture development rate in the elderly healthy population, and it may increase the incidence of hip fractures among elderly healthy women. This finding suggests refraining from prescribing high intermittent doses of vitamin D, without calcium, to individuals aged 60 or older with unknown vitamin D serum concentration or osteoporosis status and inadequate calcium intake.

Tight Versus Liberal Blood Glucose Control in Patients With Diabetes in the ICU: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Introduction: Glycemia is an important factor among critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). There is conflicting evidence on the preferred strategy of blood glucose control among patients with diabetes in the ICU. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis comparing tight with liberal blood glucose in critically ill patients with diabetes in the ICU. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tight versus liberal blood glucose control in critically ill patients with diabetes from inception to December 2023. We pooled odds-ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with a random-effects model for binary endpoints. We used the Review Manager 5.17 and R version 4.3.2 for statistical analyses. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Cochrane tool for randomized trials (RoB2). Results: Eight RCTs with 4474 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.95-1.28; P = .18; I² = 0%) between a tight and liberal blood glucose control. RoB2 identified all studies at low risk of bias and funnel plot suggested no evidence of publication bias. Conclusion: In patients with diabetes in the ICU, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between a tight and liberal blood glucose control. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023485032.