scholarly journals Effect of Vitamin D on Blood Pressure and Hypertension in the General Population: An Update Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dongdong Zhang ◽  
Cheng Cheng ◽  
Yan Wang ◽  
Hualei Sun ◽  
Songcheng Yu ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 88 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 90-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tina Jafari ◽  
Aziz A. Fallah ◽  
Noushin Rostampour ◽  
Leila Mahmoodnia

Abstract. Inconsistent findings have been reported regarding the effects of vitamin D on blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to evaluate the subject through a meta-analysis. A computerized literature search on five databases was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until March 2016 were identified. The eligibility criteria for articles to be selected were parallel-group RCTs in which consumption of a kind of vitamin D was compared with placebo in patients with T2D. Un-standardized mean difference and its corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI) was calculated from the effect sizes by using random effects model. Studies comparing intervention group (received vitamin D) with control group (received placebo) were enrolled in meta-analysis. Meta-analysis on 26 studies with 1789 type 2 diabetic subjects showed that vitamin D significantly reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP; –0.97 mmHg, 95 % CI: –1.94, –0.001, P = 0.050), but not diastolic blood pressure (DBP; –0.10 mmHg, 95 % CI: –0.22, 0.02, P = 0.087). Subgroup analyses showed that administration of vitamin D in patients with baseline serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D < 50 nmol/l and baseline SBP < 140 mmHg significantly reduced SBP. Moreover, the patients who received vitamin D without Ca co-supplementation showed significant reduction in SBP. Vitamin D doses (≤ 2000 or > 2000 IU/day) and method of vitamin D application (Supplementation or food fortification) did not affect the blood pressure. This study demonstrated that vitamin D improved SBP in type 2 diabetic patients. Therefore, this vitamin can be considered as an adjuvant therapy in these patients.


2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 627-645
Author(s):  
Omid Asbaghi ◽  
Fatemeh Naeini ◽  
Vihan Moodi ◽  
Moein Najafi ◽  
Mina Shirinbakhshmasoleh ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
A.P Sunjaya ◽  
A.F Sunjaya

Abstract Introduction Nocturnal blood pressure (BP) and early morning BP surge have consistently been found to be a better prognostic marker of cardiovascular outcome than daytime BP. Most anti-hypertensive show greater blood pressure-lowering effect in the first 12 hours compared to the next 12 hours. Several prospective studies have shown better BP regulation and improved cardiovascular risk when anti-hypertensive are ingested at bedtime versus at awakening. Purpose In patients with hypertension does evening dosing of anti-hypertensive compared to morning dosing led to better reduction in pressure, blood pressure control and reduced cardiovascular morbidity. Methods A meta-analysis was performed based on randomized controlled trials obtained from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Medline and Medline ahead of print published between 2000 and 2020. Main outcome measures include mean 24 hour systolic and diastolic blood pressure, cardiovascular events as well as prevalence of blood pressure in control. Data synthesis and analysis was done using RevMan 5.3 using a random effects model. Results A total of 40 randomized controlled trials, representing 44,167 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Most studies evaluate the administration of mixed anti-hypertensive with ≥1 medication ingested at bedtime, calcium channel blockers (CCBs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with sample sizes ranging from 30 to 19,084 patients. Evening administration of anti-hypertensive was found to significantly lower 24-hour systolic blood pressure (Mean difference = −1.05, 95% CI: −2.01 to −0.10, p=0.03) and 24-hour diastolic blood pressure (Mean difference = −1.09, 95% CI: −1.68 to −0.50, p=0.0003). Prevalence of controlled blood pressure was found to significantly increase with evening dosing (RR=1.15, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.28, p=0.01). Significant reduction in cardiovascular events were found in the evening dosing group (RR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.68, p=&lt;0.00001). Discussion Reduction in night-time blood pressure especially among non-dippers as reported in previous studies and higher prevalence of controlled blood pressure may explain the greater than 50% reduction in cardiovascular events in the evening dosing group. This marked benefit from a simple and inexpensive strategy certainly has great potential to benefit patients in practice. Even so, few studies have reported the prevalence of blood pressure in control (9 studies) and cardiovascular events (6 studies). Few has also studied this in geriatric populations where night-time hypotension and hypoperfusion may bring the most impact. Conclusion For patients with hypertension, evening dosing significantly improves blood pressure control and reduces the risk for cardiovascular events. Careful selection of anti-hypertensive administration time in patients is recommended given the possible benefits. Anti Hypertensive Dosing Forest Plot Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None


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&lt;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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document