Personalise vitamin D3 using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling.

Plasma concentration of vitamin D3 metabolite 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25(OH)D3 ) is variable among individuals. The objective of this study is to establish an accurate model for 25(OH)D3 pharmacokinetics (PKs) to support selection of a suitable dose regimen for an individual. We collated vitamin D3 and 25(OH)D3 plasma PK data from reported clinical trials and developed a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model to appropriately recapitulate training data. Model predictions were then qualified with 25(OH)D3 plasma PKs under vitamin D3 and 25(OH)D3 dose regimens distinct from training data. From data exploration, we observed the increase in plasma 25(OH)D3 after repeated dosing was negatively correlated with 25(OH)D3 baseline levels. Our final model included a first-order vitamin D3 absorption, a first-order vitamin D3 metabolism, and a nonlinear 25(OH)D3 elimination function. This structure explained the apparent paradox. Remarkably, the model accurately predicted plasma 25(OH)D3 following repeated dosing up to 1250 µg/d in the test set. It also made sensible predictions for large single vitamin D3 doses up to 50,000 µg in the test set. Model predicts 10 µg/d regimen may be ineffective for achieving sufficiency (plasma 25(OH)D3 ≥ 75 nmol/L) for a severely deficient individual (baseline 25(OH)D3 = 10 nmol/L), and it might take the same person over 200 days to reach sufficiency at 20 µg/d dose. We propose to personalize vitamin D3 supplementation protocol with this PBPK model. It would require measuring 25(OH)D3 baseline levels, which is not routinely performed under the current UK public health advice. STUDY HIGHLIGHTS: WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? Vitamin D PK exhibits substantial inter-individual variability. Different officially recommended daily doses are confusing. ​ WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? Is the UK's recommended 10 µg daily dose sufficient? Should everyone be given same dose? ​ WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? Our model accurately predicts plasma 25(OH)D under daily oral administration of vitamin D3 . The 10 µg daily vitamin D3 dose is insufficient for prophylaxis (plasma 25(OH)D at 75 nmol/L). ​ HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE DRUG DISCOVERY, DEVELOPMENT, AND/OR THERAPEUTICS? Combining blood test to measure 25(OH)D baseline with this PBPK model will help inform dosage selection and select follow-up date to improve effectiveness of Hypovitaminosis D treatment.

Vitamin D supplementation and COVID-19 risk: a population-based, cohort study.

PURPOSE: To analyze the associations between cholecalciferol or calcifediol supplementation, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels and COVID-19 outcomes in a large population. METHODS: All individuals ≥ 18 years old living in Barcelona-Central Catalonia (n = 4.6 million) supplemented with cholecalciferol or calcifediol from April 2019 to February 2020 were compared with propensity score-matched untreated controls. Outcome variables were SARS-CoV2 infection, severe COVID-19 and COVID-19 mortality occuring during the first wave of the pandemic. Demographical data, comorbidities, serum 25OHD levels and concomitant pharmacological treatments were collected as covariates. Associations between cholecalciferol or calcifediol use and outcome variables were analyzed using multivariate Cox proportional regression. RESULTS: Cholecalciferol supplementation (n = 108,343) was associated with slight protection from SARS-CoV2 infection (n = 4352 [4.0%] vs 9142/216,686 [4.2%] in controls; HR 0.95 [CI 95% 0.91-0.98], p = 0.004). Patients on cholecalciferol treatment achieving 25OHD levels ≥ 30 ng/ml had lower risk of SARS-CoV2 infection, lower risk of severe COVID-19 and lower COVID-19 mortality than unsupplemented 25OHD-deficient patients (56/9474 [0.6%] vs 96/7616 [1.3%]; HR 0.66 [CI 95% 0.46-0.93], p = 0.018). Calcifediol use (n = 134,703) was not associated with reduced risk of SARS-CoV2 infection or mortality in the whole cohort. However, patients on calcifediol treatment achieving serum 25OHD levels ≥ 30 ng/ml also had lower risk of SARS-CoV2 infection, lower risk of severe COVID-19, and lower COVID-19 mortality compared to 25OHD-deficient patients not receiving vitamin D supplements (88/16276 [0.5%] vs 96/7616 [1.3%]; HR 0.56 [CI 95% 0.42-0.76], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, population-based study, we observed that patients supplemented with cholecalciferol or calcifediol achieving serum 25OHD levels ≥ 30 ng/ml were associated with better COVID-19 outcomes.

Vitamin D and COVID-19 severity and related mortality: a prospective study in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency has been suggested to favor a poorer outcome of Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). We aimed to assess if 25-hydroxyvitamin-D (25OHD) levels are associated with interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels and with disease severity and mortality in COVID-19. METHODS: We prospectively studied 103 in-patients admitted to a Northern-Italian hospital (age 66.1 ± 14.1 years, 70 males) for severely-symptomatic COVID-19. Fifty-two subjects with SARS-CoV-2 infection but mild COVID-19 symptoms (mildly-symptomatic COVID-19 patients) and 206 subjects without SARS-CoV-2 infection were controls. We measured 25OHD and IL-6 levels at admission and focused on respiratory outcome during hospitalization. RESULTS: Severely-symptomatic COVID-19 patients had lower 25OHD levels (18.2 ± 11.4 ng/mL) than mildly-symptomatic COVID-19 patients and non-SARS-CoV-2-infected controls (30.3 ± 8.5 ng/mL and 25.4 ± 9.4 ng/mL, respectively, p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). 25OHD and IL-6 levels were respectively lower and higher in severely-symptomatic COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care Unit [(ICU), 14.4 ± 8.6 ng/mL and 43.0 (19.0-56.0) pg/mL, respectively], than in those not requiring ICU admission [22.4 ± 1.4 ng/mL, p = 0.0001 and 16.0 (8.0-32.0) pg/mL, p = 0.0002, respectively]. Similar differences were found when comparing COVID-19 patients who died in hospital [13.2 ± 6.4 ng/mL and 45.0 (28.0-99.0) pg/mL] with survivors [19.3 ± 12.0 ng/mL, p = 0.035 and 21.0 (10.5-45.9) pg/mL, p = 0.018, respectively). 25OHD levels inversely correlated with: i) IL-6 levels (ρ - 0.284, p = 0.004); ii) the subsequent need of the ICU admission [relative risk, RR 0.99, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.98-1.00, p = 0.011] regardless of age, gender, presence of at least 1 comorbidity among obesity, diabetes, arterial hypertension, creatinine, IL-6 and lactate dehydrogenase levels, neutrophil cells, lymphocytes and platelets count; iii) mortality (RR 0.97, 95%CI, 0.95-0.99, p = 0.011) regardless of age, gender, presence of diabetes, IL-6 and C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase levels, neutrophil cells, lymphocytes and platelets count. CONCLUSION: In our COVID-19 patients, low 25OHD levels were inversely correlated with high IL-6 levels and were independent predictors of COVID-19 severity and mortality.

Calcifediol Treatment and COVID-19-Related Outcomes.

CONTEXT: COVID-19 is a major health problem because of saturation of intensive care units (ICU) and mortality. Vitamin D has emerged as a potential treatment able to reduce the disease severity. OBJECTIVE: This work aims to elucidate the effect of 25(OH)D3 (calcifediol) treatment on COVID-19-related outcomes. METHODS: This observational cohort study was conducted from March to May 2020, among patients admitted to COVID-19 wards of Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain. A total of 930 patients with COVID-19 were included; 92 were excluded because of previous calcifediol intake. Of the remaining 838, a total of 447 received calcifediol (532 µg on day 1 plus 266 µg on days 3, 7, 15, and 30), whereas 391 were not treated at the time of hospital admission (intention-to-treat). Of the latter, 53 patients were treated later during ICU admission and were allocated in the treated group in a second analysis. In healthy individuals, calcifediol is about 3.2-fold more potent on a weight basis than cholecalciferol. Main outcome measures were ICU admission and mortality. RESULTS: ICU assistance was required by 102 (12.2%) participants. Out of 447 patients treated with calcifediol at admission, 20 (4.5%) required the ICU, compared to 82 (21%) out of 391 nontreated (P < .001). Logistic regression of calcifediol treatment on ICU admission, adjusted by age, sex, linearized 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at baseline, and comorbidities showed that treated patients had a reduced risk of requiring the ICU (odds ratio [OR] 0.13; 95% CI 0.07-0.23). Overall mortality was 10%. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 21 (4.7%) out of 447 patients treated with calcifediol at admission died compared to 62 patients (15.9%) out of 391 nontreated (P = .001). Adjusted results showed a reduced mortality risk with an OR of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.10-0.43). In the second analysis, the obtained OR was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.27-0.99). CONCLUSION: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, calcifediol treatment significantly reduced ICU admission and mortality.

Calcifediol Treatment and Hospital Mortality Due to COVID-19: A Cohort Study.

CONTEXT: Calcifediol has been proposed as a potential treatment for COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare the administration or not of oral calcifediol on mortality risk of patients hospitalized because of COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective, multicenter, open, non-randomized cohort study. SETTINGS: Hospitalized care. PATIENTS: Patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between 5 February and 5 May 2020 in five hospitals in the South of Spain. INTERVENTION: Patients received calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D3) treatment (0.266 mg/capsule, 2 capsules on entry and then one capsule on day 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28) or not. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: In-hospital mortality during the first 30 days after admission. RESULTS: A total of 537 patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 (317 males (59%), median age, 70 years), and 79 (14.7%) received calcifediol treatment. Overall, in-hospital mortality during the first 30 days was 17.5%. The OR of death for patients receiving calcifediol (mortality rate of 5%) was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.61) compared to patients not receiving such treatment (mortality rate of 20%; p < 0.01). Patients who received calcifediol after admission were more likely than those not receiving treatment to have comorbidity and a lower rate of CURB-65 score for pneumonia severity ≥ 3 (one point for each of confusion, urea > 7 mmol/L, respiratory rate ≥ 30/min, systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤ 60 mm Hg, and age ≥ 65 years), acute respiratory distress syndrome (moderate or severe), c-reactive protein, chronic kidney disease, and blood urea nitrogen. In a multivariable logistic regression model, adjusting for confounders, there were significant differences in mortality for patients receiving calcifediol compared with patients not receiving it (OR = 0.16 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.80). CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, treatment with calcifediol, compared with those not receiving calcifediol, was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality during the first 30 days. The observational design and sample size may limit the interpretation of these findings.

Vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The role of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment for COVID-19 has been a subject of considerable discussion. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether vitamin D supplementation is effective and safe for the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard of care alone, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 11 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating preventive effects, or studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following prioritised outcome categories: individuals with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events, and for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease: all-cause mortality, development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three RCTs with 356 participants, of whom 183 received vitamin D. In accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale, two studies investigated participants with moderate or severe disease, and one study individuals with mild or asymptomatic disease. The control groups consisted of placebo treatment or standard of care alone. Effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We included two studies with 313 participants. Due to substantial clinical and methodological diversity of both studies, we were not able to pool data. Vitamin D status was unknown in one study, whereas the other study reported data for vitamin D deficient participants. One study administered multiple doses of oral calcifediol at days 1, 3 and 7,  whereas the other study gave a single high dose of oral cholecalciferol at baseline. We assessed one study with low risk of bias for effectiveness outcomes, and the other with some concerns about randomisation and selective reporting. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (313 participants) We found two studies reporting data for this outcome. One study reported no deaths when treated with vitamin D out of 50 participants, compared to two deaths out of 26 participants in the control group (Risk ratio (RR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.13). The other study reported nine deaths out of 119 individuals in the vitamin D group, whereas six participants out of 118 died in the placebo group (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.04]. We are very uncertain whether vitamin D has an effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (very low-certainty evidence). Clinical status assessed by the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (237 participants) We found one study reporting data for this outcome. Nine out of 119 participants needed invasive mechanical ventilation when treated with vitamin D, compared to 17 out of 118 participants in the placebo group (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.13). Vitamin D supplementation may decrease need for invasive mechanical ventilation, but the evidence is uncertain (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life We did not find data for quality of life. Safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We did not include data from one study, because assessment of serious adverse events was not described and we are concerned that data might have been inconsistently measured. This study reported vomiting in one out of 119 participants immediately after vitamin D intake (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.30). We are very uncertain whether vitamin D supplementation is associated with higher risk for adverse events (very low-certainty). Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and asymptomatic or mild disease We found one study including 40 individuals, which did not report our prioritised outcomes, but instead data for viral clearance, inflammatory markers, and vitamin D serum levels. The authors reported no events of hypercalcaemia, but recording and assessment of further adverse events remains unclear. Authors administered oral cholecalciferol in daily doses for at least 14 days, and continued with weekly doses if vitamin D blood levels were > 50 ng/mL. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment of COVID-19. The evidence for the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19 is very uncertain. Moreover, we found only limited safety information, and were concerned about consistency in measurement and recording of these outcomes. There was substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity of included studies, mainly because of different supplementation strategies, formulations, vitamin D status of participants, and reported outcomes. There is an urgent need for well-designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with an appropriate randomisation procedure, comparability of study arms and preferably double-blinding. We identified 21 ongoing and three completed studies without published results, which indicates that these needs will be addressed and that our findings are subject to change in the future. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.

Vitamin D receptor stimulation to reduce acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in patients with coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 infections: Revised Ms SBMB 2020_166.

Coronavirus infection is a serious health problem awaiting an effective vaccine and/or antiviral treatment. The major complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Acute Respiratory Distress syndrome (ARDS), is due to a variety of mechanisms including cytokine storm, dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system, neutrophil activation and increased (micro)coagulation. Based on many preclinical studies and observational data in humans, ARDS may be aggravated by vitamin D deficiency and tapered down by activation of the vitamin D receptor. Several randomized clinical trials using either oral vitamin D or oral Calcifediol (25OHD) are ongoing. Based on a pilot study, oral calcifediol may be the most promising approach. These studies are expected to provide guidelines within a few months.