Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
Thorax ; 2021 Nov 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1541926

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for severe COVID-19 include older age, male sex, obesity, black or Asian ethnicity and underlying medical conditions. Whether these factors also influence susceptibility to developing COVID-19 is uncertain. METHODS: We undertook a prospective, population-based cohort study (COVIDENCE UK) from 1 May 2020 to 5 February 2021. Baseline information on potential risk factors was captured by an online questionnaire. Monthly follow-up questionnaires captured incident COVID-19. We used logistic regression models to estimate multivariable-adjusted ORs (aORs) for associations between potential risk factors and odds of COVID-19. RESULTS: We recorded 446 incident cases of COVID-19 in 15 227 participants (2.9%). Increased odds of developing COVID-19 were independently associated with Asian/Asian British versus white ethnicity (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.91), household overcrowding (aOR per additional 0.5 people/bedroom 1.26, 1.11 to 1.43), any versus no visits to/from other households in previous week (aOR 1.31, 1.06 to 1.62), number of visits to indoor public places (aOR per extra visit per week 1.05, 1.02 to 1.09), frontline occupation excluding health/social care versus no frontline occupation (aOR 1.49, 1.12 to 1.98) and raised body mass index (BMI) (aOR 1.50 (1.19 to 1.89) for BMI 25.0-30.0 kg/m2 and 1.39 (1.06 to 1.84) for BMI >30.0 kg/m2 versus BMI <25.0 kg/m2). Atopic disease was independently associated with decreased odds (aOR 0.75, 0.59 to 0.97). No independent associations were seen for age, sex, other medical conditions, diet or micronutrient supplement use. CONCLUSIONS: After rigorous adjustment for factors influencing exposure to SARS-CoV-2, Asian/Asian British ethnicity and raised BMI were associated with increased odds of developing COVID-19, while atopic disease was associated with decreased odds. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04330599).

2.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 9(5): 276-292, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1531931

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Tract Infections/diet therapy , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Vitamin D/administration & dosage , Dietary Supplements , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome
3.
Aging Clin Exp Res ; 33(7): 2031-2041, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1491488

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The rapid global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has re-ignited interest in the possible role of vitamin D in modulation of host responses to respiratory pathogens. Indeed, vitamin D supplementation has been proposed as a potential preventative or therapeutic strategy. Recommendations for any intervention, particularly in the context of a potentially fatal pandemic infection, should be strictly based on clinically informed appraisal of the evidence base. In this narrative review, we examine current evidence relating to vitamin D and COVID-19 and consider the most appropriate practical recommendations. OBSERVATIONS: Although there are a growing number of studies investigating the links between vitamin D and COVID-19, they are mostly small and observational with high risk of bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality. Extrapolation of molecular actions of 1,25(OH)2-vitamin D to an effect of increased 25(OH)-vitamin D as a result of vitamin D supplementation is generally unfounded, as is the automatic conclusion of causal mechanisms from observational studies linking low 25(OH)-vitamin D to incident disease. Efficacy is ideally demonstrated in the context of adequately powered randomised intervention studies, although such approaches may not always be feasible. CONCLUSIONS: At present, evidence to support vitamin D supplementation for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 is inconclusive. In the absence of any further compelling data, adherence to existing national guidance on vitamin D supplementation to prevent vitamin D deficiency, predicated principally on maintaining musculoskeletal health, appears appropriate.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vitamin D Deficiency , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vitamin D , Vitamins
5.
medRxiv ; 2020 Nov 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-955727

ABSTRACT

Background: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections revealed a protective effect of the intervention. Since then, 20 new RCTs have been completed. Methods: 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. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception to 1st May 2020. 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. Aggregate data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020190633). Findings: We identified 45 eligible RCTs (total 73,384 participants). Data were obtained for 46,331 (98.0%) of 47,262 participants in 42 studies, aged 0 to 95 years. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; P for heterogeneity 0.01). 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 0.93). No significant interaction was seen between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, dose size, or study duration. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.008, Egger's test). Interpretation: Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. 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. Funding: None.

6.
FEBS J ; 287(17): 3689-3692, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-767430

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has focused attention on the potential role of vitamin D supplementation to prevent COVID-19. In this issue, Merzon and colleagues report epidemiologic data on the vitamin D status of 7807 individuals and their risk of developing COVID-19. In multivariable analyses, low vitamin D status was associated with increased risk of both COVID-19 infection and hospitalization. The authors call for clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation. In this Commentary, we discuss some of the challenges of vitamin D research and provide recommendations for the design of randomized controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation to prevent COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Vitamin D/therapeutic use , COVID-19/etiology , Clinical Protocols , Dietary Supplements , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Tract Infections/etiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Risk Factors , Vitamin D Deficiency/complications
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...