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.

No abstract

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.

Clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation are needed to investigate whether it enhances immunity to microbial infections.

No abstract

A correlation has also been found between low femoral BMD and stress fractures. We measured serum 25(OH)D concentration in a population sample of military recruits to determine if vitamin D is a predisposing factor for fatigue bone stress fracture. Materials and Methods: We prospectively followed 800 randomly selected, healthy Finnish military recruits with a mean age of 19 years for developing stress fractures in homogenous circumstances. Blood for serum 25(OH)D concentration was drawn at entry into military service, and the weight, height, body mass index (BMI), muscle strength, and 12-minute running were measured for all subjects. Serum 25(OH)D concentrations were measured with enzyme immunoassay. At end of the 90-day follow-up, 756 subjects completed the study. Subjects without fracture constituted controls. Results: Twenty-two recruits with stress fracture were identified (2.9%), the incidence being 11.6 (95% CI: 6.8-16.5) per 100 person-years. In the final multivariate analysis, the significant risk factor for stress fracture in conscripts was a below median serum 25(OH)D level (75.8 nM), OR being 3.6 (95% CI: 1.2-11.1). No significant associations between BMI (p ‫ס‬ 0.255), age (p ‫ס‬ 0.216), or smoking (p ‫ס‬ 0.851) and bone stress fracture were found in this study population. Conclusions: A lower level of serum 25(OH)D concentration may be a generally predisposing element for bone stress fractures. Considering the obvious need of additional vitamin D in prevention of stress fractures, the effects of vitamin D fortification of foods and supplementation will be subjects of interest for future research.

According to the present paradigm, 1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 [1alpha,25-(OH)2D3] is a biologically active hormone; whereas 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25OHD3) is regarded as a prohormone activated through the action of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 1alpha-hydroxylase (1alpha-hydroxylase). Although the role of vitamin D3 in the regulation of growth and differentiation of prostatic epithelial cells has been well studied, its action and metabolism in prostatic stroma are still largely unknown. We investigated the effects of 25OHD3 and 1alpha,25-(OH)2D3 on two human stromal primary cultures termed P29SN and P32S. In a cell proliferation assay, 25OHD3 was found at physiological concentrations of 100-250 nM to inhibit the growth of both primary cultures, whereas 1alpha,25-(OH)2D3 at a pharmacological concentration of 10 nM exhibited the growth-inhibitory effects on P29SN cells but not on P32S cells. Quantitative real-time RT-PCR analysis revealed that both 25OHD3 and 1alpha,25-(OH)2D3 induced 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 24-hydroxylase (24-hydroxylase) mRNA in a dose- and time-dependent manner. By inhibiting 1alpha-hydroxylase and/or 24-hydroxylase enzyme activities, the induction of 24-hydroxylase mRNA by 250 nM 25OHD3 was clearly enhanced, suggesting that 1alpha-hydroxylation is not a prerequisite for the hormonal activity of 25OHD3. Altogether our results suggest that 25OHD3 at a high but physiological concentration acts as an active hormone with respect to vitamin D3 responsive gene regulation and suppression of cell proliferation.

Objectives: To assess the overall effect of vitamin D supplementation on risk of acute respiratory infection (ARI), and to identify factors modifying this effect. Design: We conducted a 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. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Standard RCT Number (ISRCTN) registry from inception to May 2020. Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: 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. Results: We identified 40 eligible RCTs (total 30,956 participants, aged 0 to 95 years). Data were obtained for 29,841 (96.5%) of 30,909 participants in 39 studies. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98; P for heterogeneity 0.009). 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 0.94). Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but two trials. A funnel plot showed asymmetry, suggesting that small trials showing non-protective effects of vitamin D may have been omitted from the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. The overall effect size may have been over-estimated due to publication bias. 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.