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: Bolus Is Bogus-A Narrative Review.

In this review we summarize the impact of bolus versus daily dosing of vitamin D on 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D levels, as well as on key countervailing factors that block vitamin D functions at the cellular level. Further, we discuss the role of bolus versus daily dosing of vitamin D for several health outcomes, including respiratory infections and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), rickets, falls and fractures, any cancer, and cancer-related mortality. This discussion appears timely because bolus doses continue to be tested for various disease outcomes despite a growing amount of evidence suggesting lack of efficacy or even detrimental effects of bolus dosing of vitamin D for outcomes where daily dosing at modest levels was effective in the vitamin D deficient. As a result, these discordant results may bias health recommendations for vitamin D if the recommendations are based on meta-analyses combining both daily and bolus dosing trials. © 2021 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: evaluation study on self-perceived competences and views of health care professionals.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to describe communication experiences while wearing a mask during COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, to identify possible mask-related barriers to COVID-19-adapted communications and to investigate whether the ABC mnemonic (A: attend mindfully; B: behave calmly; C: communicate clearly) might address these. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional, voluntary, web-based survey between January and February 2021. A 22-item survey was developed using the Surveymonkey platform and question styles were varied to include single choice and Likert scales. The respondents were also asked to view a short video presentation, which outlined the ABC mnemonic. CHERRIES (Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) was used to ensure completeness of reporting. Diverging stacked bar charts were created to illustrate Likert scale responses. RESULTS: We received 226 responses. The respondents were mostly women (60.2%) and the majority worked in a teaching hospital (64.6%). The majority of the respondents indicated issues related to lack of time during clinical encounters, uncertainty about how to adapt communication, lack of personal protective equipment, lack of communication skills and lack of information about how to adapt their own communication skills. In addition, the participants indicated acknowledging emotions and providing information using clear, specific, unambiguous, and consistent lay language while wearing a mask were among the main communication challenges created during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the study showed significantly improved self-perceived competency regarding key communication after watching the short video presentation. CONCLUSION: Effective communication in medical encounters requires both verbal and nonverbal skills.