Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Biomedicines ; 11(4)2023 Mar 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2295788

ABSTRACT

Accumulating evidence supports the potential protective effects of vitamin D against chronic diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, autoimmune diseases, cancers, cardiovascular disease (ischaemic heart disease and stroke), type 2 diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, stroke, and infectious diseases such as acute respiratory tract diseases, COVID-19, influenza, and pneumonia, as well as adverse pregnancy outcomes. The respective evidence is based on ecological and observational studies, randomized controlled trials, mechanistic studies, and Mendelian randomization studies. However, randomized controlled trials on vitamin D supplementation have largely failed to show benefits, probably due to poor design and analysis. In this work, we aim to use the best available evidence on the potential beneficial effects of vitamin D to estimate the expected reduction in incidence and mortality rates of vitamin D-related diseases in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates if minimum serum 25(OH)D concentrations were to be raised to 30 ng/mL. Estimated reductions by 25% for myocardial infarction incidence, 35% for stroke incidence, 20 to 35% for cardiovascular disease mortality, and 35% for cancer mortality rates depicted a promising potential for raising serum 25(OH)D. Methods to increase serum 25(OH)D concentrations at the population level could include food fortification with vitamin D3, vitamin D supplementation, improved dietary vitamin D intake, and sensible sun exposure.

2.
Endocr Connect ; 11(12)2022 Dec 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2054472

ABSTRACT

High vitamin D deficiency rates, with rickets and osteomalacia, have been common in South Asians (SAs) arriving in Britain since the 1950s with preventable infant deaths from hypocalcaemic status-epilepticus and cardiomyopathy. Vitamin D deficiency increases common SA disorders (type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease), recent trials and non-linear Mendelian randomisation studies having shown deficiency to be causal for both disorders. Ethnic minority, obesity, diabetes and social deprivation are recognised COVID-19 risk factors, but vitamin D deficiency is not, despite convincing mechanistic evidence of it. Adjusting analyses for obesity/ethnicity abolishes vitamin D deficiency in COVID-19 risk prediction, but both factors lower serum 25(OH)D specifically. Social deprivation inadequately explains increased ethnic minority COVID-19 risks. SA vitamin D deficiency remains uncorrected after 70 years, official bodies using 'education', 'assimilation' and 'diet' as 'proxies' for ethnic differences and increasing pressures to assimilate. Meanwhile, English rickets was abolished from ~1940 by free 'welfare foods' (meat, milk, eggs, cod liver oil), for all pregnant/nursing mothers and young children (<5 years old). Cod liver oil was withdrawn from antenatal clinics in 1994 (for excessive vitamin A teratogenicity), without alternative provision. The take-up of the 2006 'Healthy-Start' scheme of food-vouchers for low-income families with young children (<3 years old) has been poor, being inaccessible and poorly publicised. COVID-19 pandemic advice for UK adults in 'lockdown' was '400 IU vitamin D/day', inadequate for correcting the deficiency seen winter/summer at 17.5%/5.9% in White, 38.5%/30% in Black and 57.2%/50.8% in SA people in representative UK Biobank subjects when recruited ~14 years ago and remaining similar in 2018. Vitamin D inadequacy worsens many non-skeletal health risks. Not providing vitamin D for preventing SA rickets and osteomalacia continues to be unacceptable, as deficiency-related health risks increase ethnic health disparities, while abolishing vitamin D deficiency would be easier and more cost-effective than correcting any other factor worsening ethnic minority health in Britain.

3.
Nutrients ; 14(18)2022 Sep 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2043872

ABSTRACT

Although observational studies of health outcomes generally suggest beneficial effects with, or following, higher serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have generally not supported those findings. Here we review results from observational studies and RCTs regarding how vitamin D status affects several nonskeletal health outcomes, including Alzheimer's disease and dementia, autoimmune diseases, cancers, cardiovascular disease, COVID-19, major depressive disorder, type 2 diabetes, arterial hypertension, all-cause mortality, respiratory tract infections, and pregnancy outcomes. We also consider relevant findings from ecological, Mendelian randomization, and mechanistic studies. Although clear discrepancies exist between findings of observational studies and RCTs on vitamin D and human health benefits these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Bias and confounding are seen in observational studies and vitamin D RCTs have several limitations, largely due to being designed like RCTs of therapeutic drugs, thereby neglecting vitamin D's being a nutrient with a unique metabolism that requires specific consideration in trial design. Thus, RCTs of vitamin D can fail for several reasons: few participants' having low baseline 25(OH)D concentrations, relatively small vitamin D doses, participants' having other sources of vitamin D, and results being analyzed without consideration of achieved 25(OH)D concentrations. Vitamin D status and its relevance for health outcomes can usefully be examined using Hill's criteria for causality in a biological system from results of observational and other types of studies before further RCTs are considered and those findings would be useful in developing medical and public health policy, as they were for nonsmoking policies. A promising approach for future RCT design is adjustable vitamin D supplementation based on interval serum 25(OH)D concentrations to achieve target 25(OH)D levels suggested by findings from observational studies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vitamin D Deficiency , Dietary Supplements , Female , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Pregnancy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Vitamin D , Vitamins/therapeutic use
4.
Nutrients ; 14(12)2022 Jun 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1896907

ABSTRACT

Many diseases have large seasonal variations in which winter overall mortality rates are about 25% higher than in summer in mid-latitude countries, with cardiovascular diseases and respiratory infections and conditions accounting for most of the variation. Cancers, by contrast, do not usually have pronounced seasonal variations in incidence or mortality rates. This narrative review examines the epidemiological evidence for seasonal variations in blood pressure, cardiovascular disease rates and respiratory viral infections in relation to atmospheric temperature and humidity, and solar UV exposure through vitamin D production and increased blood concentrations of nitric oxide. However, additional mechanisms most likely exist by which solar radiation reduces the risk of seasonally varying diseases. Some studies have been reported with respect to temperature without considering solar UV doses, although studies regarding solar UV doses, such as for respiratory infections, often consider whether temperature can affect the findings. More research is indicated to evaluate the relative effects of temperature and sun exposure on the seasonality of mortality rates for several diseases. Since solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) doses decrease to vanishingly small values at higher latitudes in winter, the use of safe UVB lamps for indoor use in winter may warrant consideration.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Tract Infections , Sunlight , Humans , Seasons , Ultraviolet Rays/adverse effects , Vitamin D
5.
Nutrients ; 14(3)2022 Feb 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1667260

ABSTRACT

Vitamin D3 has many important health benefits. Unfortunately, these benefits are not widely known among health care personnel and the general public. As a result, most of the world's population has serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations far below optimal values. This narrative review examines the evidence for the major causes of death including cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and COVID-19 with regard to sub-optimal 25(OH)D concentrations. Evidence for the beneficial effects comes from a variety of approaches including ecological and observational studies, studies of mechanisms, and Mendelian randomization studies. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are generally considered the strongest form of evidence for pharmaceutical drugs, the study designs and the conduct of RCTs performed for vitamin D have mostly been flawed for the following reasons: they have been based on vitamin D dose rather than on baseline and achieved 25(OH)D concentrations; they have involved participants with 25(OH)D concentrations above the population mean; they have given low vitamin D doses; and they have permitted other sources of vitamin D. Thus, the strongest evidence generally comes from the other types of studies. The general finding is that optimal 25(OH)D concentrations to support health and wellbeing are above 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L) for cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality rate, whereas the thresholds for several other outcomes appear to range up to 40 or 50 ng/mL. The most efficient way to achieve these concentrations is through vitamin D supplementation. Although additional studies are warranted, raising serum 25(OH)D concentrations to optimal concentrations will result in a significant reduction in preventable illness and death.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Calcifediol , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vitamin D/analogs & derivatives
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL