Vitamin D3 and gargling for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infections: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We undertook a 2X2 factorial, randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess whether vitamin D3 supplementation (10,000 international units per week) versus placebo and gargling versus no gargling could prevent viral, clinical upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) in university students. METHODS: We randomized 600 students into 4 treatment arms: 1) vitamin D3 and gargling, 2) placebo and gargling, 3) vitamin D3 and no gargling, and 4) placebo and no gargling. Students completed weekly electronic surveys and submitted self-collected mid-turbinate nasal flocked swabs during September and October in 2010 or 2011. Symptomatic students also completed an electronic symptom diary. The primary and secondary outcomes were the occurrence of symptomatic clinical URTI and laboratory confirmed URTI respectively. RESULTS: Of 600 participants, 471 (78.5%) completed all surveys while 43 (7.2%) completed none; 150 (25.0%) reported clinical URTI. Seventy participants (23.3%) randomized to vitamin D3 reported clinical URTI compared to 80 (26.7%) randomized to placebo (RR:0.79, CI95:0.61-1.03, p = 0.09). Eighty-five participants (28.3%) randomized to gargling reported clinical URTI compared to 65 participants (21.7%) randomized to the no gargling arm (RR:1.3, CI95:0.92-1.57, p = 0.19). Laboratory testing identified 70 infections (46.7 per 100 URTIs). Vitamin D3 treatment was associated with a significantly lower risk for laboratory confirmed URTI (RR: 0.54, CI95:0.34-0.84, p = 0.007) and with a significantly lower mean viral load measured as log10 viral copies/mL (mean difference: -0.89, CI95: -1.7, -0.06, p = 0.04). Fewer students assigned to gargling experienced laboratory confirmed URTI, however this was not statistically significant (RR:0.82, CI95:0.53-1.26, p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that vitamin D3 is a promising intervention for the prevention of URTI. Vitamin D3 significantly reduced the risk of laboratory confirmed URTI and may reduce the risk of clinical infections. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01158560.

Dyspnoea and symptom burden in mild-moderate COPD: the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease Study.

Studies assessing dyspnoea and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have focussed on patients in clinical settings, not the general population. The aim of this analysis was to compare the prevalence and severity of dyspnoea and impaired HRQoL in individuals with and without COPD from the general population, focussing on mild-moderate COPD. Analysis of the 3-year Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study included four subgroups: mild COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 1); moderate COPD (GOLD 2); non-COPD smokers; and non-COPD never-smokers. The primary outcome was dyspnoea (Medical Research Council (MRC) scale), and the secondary outcome was HRQoL (COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score; Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score). Subgroups were analysed by sex, physician-diagnosed COPD status and exacerbations. 1443 participants (mild COPD (n=397); moderate COPD (n=262(; smokers (n=449) and never-smokers (n=335)) were studied. People with mild COPD were more likely to report more severe dyspnoea (MRC 2 versus 1) than those without COPD (OR (95% CI) 1.42 (1.05-1.91)), and non-COPD never-smokers (OR (95%CI) 1.64 (1.07-2.52)). Among people with mild COPD, more severe dyspnoea was reported in women versus men (MRC2 versus 1; OR (95% CI) 3.70 (2.23-6.14)); people with, versus without, physician-diagnosed COPD (MRC2 versus 1; OR (95% CI) 3.27 (1.71-6.23)), and people with versus without recent exacerbations (MRC2 versus 1; ≥2 versus 0 exacerbations: OR (95% CI) 3.62 (1.02-12.86); MRC ≥3 versus 1; 1 versus 0 exacerbation: OR (95% CI): 9.24 (2.01-42.42)). Similar between-group differences were obtained for CAT and SGRQ scores. Careful assessment of dyspnoea and HRQoL could help identify individuals for earlier diagnosis and treatment.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy In COPD: The IMPACT Trial.

Background: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513). Methods: Baseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Results: Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy. Conclusion: Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the potential of vitamin D to prevent acute respiratory infections have yielded mixed results. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis has the potential to identify factors that may explain this heterogeneity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the overall effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to identify factors modifying this effect. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) registry. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of supplementation with vitamin D3 or vitamin D2 of any duration having incidence of acute respiratory infection as a prespecified efficacy outcome were selected. STUDY APPRAISAL: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool to assess sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors, completeness of outcome data, evidence of selective outcome reporting and other potential threats to validity. RESULTS: We identified 25 eligible RCTs (a total of 11,321 participants, aged from 0 to 95 years). IPD were obtained for 10,933 out of 11,321 (96.6%) participants. Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of ARI among all participants [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.96; heterogeneity p < 0.001]. Subgroup analysis revealed that protective effects were seen in individuals receiving daily or weekly vitamin D without additional bolus doses (aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.91), but not in those receiving one or more bolus doses (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.10; p = 0.05). Among those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D, protective effects of vitamin D were stronger in individuals with a baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration of < 25 nmol/l (aOR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53) than in those with a baseline 25(OH)D concentration of ≥ 25 nmol/l (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95; p = 0.006). Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.20; p = 0.83). The body of evidence contributing to these analyses was assessed as being of high quality. LIMITATIONS: Our study had limited power to detect the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of upper versus lower respiratory infection, analysed separately. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D supplementation was safe, and it protected against ARIs overall. Very deficient individuals and those not receiving bolus doses experienced the benefit. Incorporation of additional IPD from ongoing trials in the field has the potential to increase statistical power for analyses of secondary outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013953. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

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.

Comparison of asymptomatic and symptomatic rhinovirus infections in university students: incidence, species diversity, and viral load.

Human rhinovirus (HRV) infections are common but poorly characterized in university students. Thus, we characterized asymptomatic and symptomatic HRV infections by incidence, species diversity, and viral load of 502 university students during September and October of 2010 and 2011 from nasal swabs and electronically submitted symptom questionnaires. We tested all symptomatic students and randomly sampled participants who remained asymptomatic (n=25/week, over 8 weeks each study year) on a weekly basis by real-time PCR and sequenced HRV positives. HRV was identified in 33/400 (8.3%) and 85/92 (92.4%) of the asymptomatic and symptomatic students, respectively. We identified a higher than previously reported rate of HRV-B in both groups, although the distribution of HRV species was similar (P=0.37). Asymptomatic viral load averaged 1.2 log10 copies/mL lower than symptomatic HRV (P<0.001). In conclusion, asymptomatic HRV activity preceded peak symptomatic activity in September and October and was associated with lower viral load.