Vitamin D Therapy in Adults With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 1819-1830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuli Guzman-Prado ◽  
Ondrej Samson ◽  
Jonathan P Segal ◽  
Jimmy K Limdi ◽  
Bu’Hussain Hayee

Abstract Background Vitamin D deficiency has been implicated in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Emerging literature suggests that optimization of vitamin D levels may be associated with improvements in disease activity and quality of life. We conducted a meta-analysis exploring the effect of vitamin D on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (s-25[OH]D) levels, clinical improvement, and biomarkers. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and sources for grey literature were searched from inception until September 2019. The primary outcome was s-25(OH)D mean differences. Heterogeneity was assessed using the χ 2 test and the I2 statistic. Review Manager software v. 5.3 was used. Results Twelve randomized controlled trials (n = 611) and 4 observational studies (n = 359) were included in the meta-analysis. On average, in the randomized controlled trials, vitamin D supplementation increased s-25(OH)D levels by 15.50 ng/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.08-19.92, P ≤ 0.00001, I2 = 90%) and in observational studies they increased by 18.39 ng/mL (95% CI, 8.91-27.88, P = 0.0001, I2 = 82%). Subgroup analyses between vitamin D and placebo groups revealed that vitamin D increased s-25(OH)D by 14.85 ng/mL (95% CI, 9.96-19.73, P ≤ 0.00001, I2 = 90%) and when high doses of vitamin D were compared with low doses, high doses increased s-25(OH)D by 18.27 ng/mL (95% CI, 5.44-31.10, P = 0.005, I2 = 90%). The Harvey Bradshaw Index improved by –1.47 points (95% CI, –2.47 to –0.47, P = 0.004, I2 = 0%) and the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein decreased by –1.58 mg/L (95% CI, –2.95 to –0.21, P = 0.02, I2 = 0%). Conclusions Vitamin D supplementation in patients with IBD and vitamin D deficiency is effective at correcting vitamin D levels and is associated with improvement in clinical and biochemical disease activity scores.

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziyi Li ◽  
Liangzhi Wu ◽  
Junguo Zhang ◽  
Xin Huang ◽  
Lehana Thabane ◽  
...  

Objective: Laboratory findings indicated that vitamin D might have a potent protective effect on breast cancer, but epidemiology studies reported conflicting results. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation on risk of breast cancer.Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and abstracts of three major conferences were searched (up to December 8, 2020). Parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation on risk of breast cancer or change of mammography compared with placebo in females were included. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. Bayesian meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the results using data from observational studies as priors.Results: Seven RCTs were identified for effect of vitamin D on risk of breast cancer, with 19,137 females included for meta-analysis. No statistically significant effect of vitamin D on risk of breast cancer was found in classical random-effects meta-analysis (risk ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.84–1.28, p = 0.71). When Bayesian meta-analyses were conducted, results remained non-significant. There was no statistically significant effect of vitamin D on mammography density observed: mean difference = 0.46, 95% confidence interval: −2.06 to 2.98, p = 0.72.Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in breast cancer risk and change of mammography density. The protective effect of vitamin D on risk of breast cancer from previous observational studies may be overestimated.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42019138718.


QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Shah ◽  
D Saxena ◽  
D Mavalankar

Abstract Objective: Current meta-analysis aims to understand the effect of oral supplementation of vitamin D on intensive care unit (ICU) requirement and mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: Databases PubMed, preprint servers, and google scholar were searched from December 2019 to December 2020. Authors searched for the articles assessing role of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19. Cochrane RevMan tool was used for quantitative assessment of the data, where heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and Q statistics and data was expressed using odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. Results: Final meta-analysis involved pooled data of 532 hospitalized patients (189 on vitamin D supplementation and 343 on usual care/placebo) of COVID-19 from three studies (Two randomized controlled trials, one retrospective case-control study). Statistically (p<0.0001) lower ICU requirement was observed in patients with vitamin D supplementation as compared to patients without supplementations (odds ratio: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.210-0.626). However, it suffered from significant heterogeneity, which reduced after sensitivity analysis. In case of mortality, vitamin D supplements has comparable findings with placebo treatment/usual care (odds ratio: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.413-2.113; p=0.87). The studies did not show any publication bias and had fair quality score. Subgroup analysis could not be performed due to limited number of studies and hence dose and duration dependent effect of vitamin D could not be evaluated. Conclusions: Although the current meta-analysis findings indicate potential role of vitamin D in improving COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients, more robust data from randomized controlled trials are needed to substantiate its effects on mortality.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huilin Tang ◽  
Deming Li ◽  
Yufeng Li ◽  
Xi Zhang ◽  
Yiqing Song ◽  
...  

Aims. Emerging evidence has suggested a mechanistic link from vitamin D metabolism to glucose and insulin homeostasis. This study is aimed at specifically quantifying the direct effects of vitamin D supplementation on indexes of glucose and insulin homeostasis as well as incidence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) among nondiabetic adults. Methods. We systematically searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation in nondiabetic adults in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool the estimates. Results. Our meta-analysis included 47 RCTs involving 44,161 nondiabetic individuals with a median trial duration of 4 months and a median dose of 4000 IU/d. Vitamin D supplementation significantly reduced fasting glucose by 0.11 mmol/L, fasting insulin by 1.47 mIU/L, and HOMA-IR by 0.32 while increasing total 25 (OH) D levels by 40.14 nmol/L. We found no significant effects of vitamin D supplementation on insulin secretion or beta cell function indexes. Based on the data from six trials involving 39,633 participants and 2533 incident T2D cases, vitamin D supplementation was not associated with the risk of incident diabetes compared to placebo (pooled relative risk: 1.01, 95% confidence interval: 0.93 to 1.08). Conclusions. Our meta-analysis found that vitamin D supplementation might improve glucose and insulin metabolism without affecting the risk of T2D among nondiabetic adults.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seshadri Reddy Varikasuvu ◽  
Balachandar Thangappazham ◽  
Hemanth Raj

Background: Vitamin D levels have been reported to be associated with COVID-19 susceptibility, severity and mortality events.. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the use of vitamin D intervention on COVID-19 outcomes. Methods: Literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (latest search on August 5, 2021). We included RCTs reporting the use of vitamin D intervention to control/placebo group in COVID-19. Two independent researchers did literature search, abstracted data, and the risk of bias assessment. Results: A total of 6 RCTs with 551 COVID-19 patients were included. The overall collective evidence pooling all the outcomes across all RCTs indicated the beneficial use of vitamin D intervention in COVID-19 (relative risk, RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92, Z=2.33, p=0.02, I2 = 48%). However, no statistical significance was observed for individual outcomes of ICU care (RR = 0.11, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.30, Z=1.48, p=0.14, I2 = 66%) and mortality (RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.40, Z=0.66, p=0.02, I2 = 33%), though decreased rates were noted. The rates of RT-CR positivity was significantly decreased in the intervention group as compared to the non-vitamin D groups (RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89, Z=2.31, p=0.02, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: COVID-19 patients supplemented with vitamin D are more likely to demonstrate fewer rates of ICU admission, mortality events and RT-PCR positivity. However, no statistical significance has been achieved for individual outcomes of ICU and deaths. More RCTs and completion of ongoing trials largely needed to precisely establish the association between vitamin D use and COVID-19.


Nutrition ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 421-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Usha Gowda ◽  
Mutsa P. Mutowo ◽  
Ben J. Smith ◽  
Anita E. Wluka ◽  
Andre M.N. Renzaho

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document