Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials

David A Jolliffe, Carlos A Camargo Jr, John D Sluyter, Mary Aglipay, John F Aloia, Peter Bergman, Camilla T Damsgaard, Gal Dubnov-Raz, Susanna Esposito, Davaasambuu Ganmaa, Clare Gilham, Adit A Ginde, Cameron C Grant, Christopher J Griffiths, Anna Maria Hibbs, Wim Janssens, Anuradha Vaman Khadilkar, Ilkka Laaksi, Margaret T Lee, Mark Loeb, Jonathon L Maguire, David T Mauger, Paweł Majak, Semira Manaseki-Holland, David R Murdoch, Akio Nakashima, Rachel E Neale, Christine Rake, Judy R Rees, Jenni Rosendahl, Robert Scragg, Dheeraj Shah, Yoshiki Shimizu, Steve Simpson-Yap, Geeta Trilok Kumar, Mitsuyoshi Urashima, Adrian R Martineau
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.14.20152728

Abstract

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.

Systematic Review Registration CRD42020190633

Summary Box

What is already known on this subject?

What is already known on this subject?

  • A previous individual participant data meta-analysis from 10,933 participants in 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infection (ARI) demonstrated an overall protective effect (number needed to treat to prevent one ARI [NNT]=33).Sub-group analysis revealed most benefit in those with the lowest vitamin D status at baseline and not receiving bolus doses.

What this study adds

What this study adds

  • We updated this meta-analysis with trial-level data from an additional 14 placebo-controlled RCTs published since December 2015 (i.e. new total of 39 studies with 29,841 participants).

  • An overall protective effect of vitamin D supplementation against ARI was seen (NNT=36).

  • A funnel plot revealed evidence of publication bias, which could have led to an over-estimate of the protective effect.

  • No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for any of the sub-groups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration.

  • Strongest protective effects were associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for ≤12 months (NNT=8).

Introduction

Interest in the potential for vitamin D supplementation to reduce risk of acute respiratory infections (ARI) has increased since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic.1 This stems from findings of laboratory studies, showing that vitamin D metabolites support innate immune responses to respiratory viruses,2 together with observational studies reporting independent associations between low circulating levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D, the widely accepted biomarker of vitamin D status) and increased risk of ARI caused by other pathogens.3,4 Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D for the prevention of ARI have produced heterogeneous results, with some showing protection, and others reporting null findings. We previously meta-analysed individual participant data from 25 RCTs5-29 and showed a protective overall effect that was stronger in those with lower baseline 25(OH)D levels, and in trials where vitamin D was administered daily or weekly rather than in more widely spaced bolus doses.30 Since the date of the final literature search performed for that study (December 2015), fifteen RCTs with 19,569 participants fulfilling the same eligibility criteria have been completed and analysed.31-45 We therefore sought data from these more recent studies for inclusion in an updated meta-analysis of aggregate (trial-level) data to determine whether vitamin D reduced ARI risk overall, and to evaluate whether effects of vitamin D on ARI risk varied according to baseline 25(OH)D concentration and/or dosing regimen (frequency, dose size, and trial duration).

Methods

Protocol, Registration and Ethical Approvals

Methods were pre-specified in a protocol that was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=190633). Research Ethics Committee approval to conduct this meta-analysis was not required in the UK; local ethical permission to contribute data from primary trials was required and obtained for studies by Camargo et al13 (The Ethics Review Committee of the Mongolian Ministry of Health), Murdoch et al14 (Southern Health and Disability Ethics Committee, ref. URB/09/10/050/AM02), Rees et al17 (Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects, Dartmouth College, USA; Protocol # 24381), Tachimoto et al28 (Ethics committee of the Jikei University School of Medicine, ref 26-333: 7839), Tran et al18 (QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute Human Research Ethics Committee, P1570) and Urashima et al6,20 (Ethics committee of the Jikei University School of Medicine, ref 26-333: 7839).

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI)

PPI representatives were not involved in the conduct of this study.

Eligibility Criteria

Randomised, double-blind, trials of supplementation with vitamin D3, vitamin D2 or 25(OH)D of any duration, with a placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible for inclusion if they had been approved by a Research Ethics Committee and if data on incidence of ARI were collected prospectively and pre-specified as an efficacy outcome. The latter requirement was imposed in order to minimise misclassification bias (prospectively designed instruments to capture ARI events were deemed more likely to be sensitive and specific for this outcome). Studies reporting results of long-term follow-up of primary RCTs were excluded.

Study Identification and Selection

Two investigators (ARM and DAJ) searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) registry using the electronic search strategies described in the Methods Section of Supplementary Material. Searches were regularly updated up to and including 1st May 2020. No language restrictions were imposed. These searches were supplemented by searching review articles and reference lists of trial publications. Collaborators were asked if they knew of any additional trials. Three investigators (DAJ, CAC and ARM) determined which trials met the eligibility criteria.

Data Collection Processes

Summary data from trials which contributed to our previous meta-analysis of individual participant data30 were extracted from our central database, with permission from the Principal Investigators. Summary data relating to the primary outcome (overall and by sub-group) and secondary outcomes (overall only) from newly identified trials were requested from Principal Investigators. On receipt, they were assessed for consistency with associated publications. Study authors were contacted to provide missing data and to resolve any queries arising from these consistency checks. Once queries had been resolved, clean summary data were uploaded to the study database, which was held in STATA IC v14.2 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Data relating to study characteristics were extracted for the following variables: study setting, eligibility criteria, 25(OH)D assay and levels, details of intervention and control regimens, trial duration, case definitions for ARI and number entering primary analysis (after randomisation). Follow-up summary data were requested for the proportions of participants experiencing one or more ARI during the trial, both overall and stratified by baseline serum 25(OH)D concentration, where this was available. We also requested summary data on the proportions of participants who experienced one or more of the following events during the trial: upper respiratory infection (URI); lower respiratory infection (LRI); Emergency Department attendance and/or hospital admission for ARI; death due to ARI or respiratory failure; use of antibiotics to treat an ARI; absence from work or school due to ARI; a serious adverse event; death due to any cause; and potential adverse reactions to vitamin D (hypercalcaemia and renal stones).

Risk of Bias Assessment for Individual Studies

We used the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool46 to assess the following variables: 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. Study quality was assessed independently by two investigators (ARM and DAJ), except for the five trials for which DAJ and/or ARM were investigators, which were assessed by CAC. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

Definition of outcomes

The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was the proportion of participants experiencing one or more ARIs, with the definition of ARI encompassing events classified as URI, LRI and ARI of unclassified location (i.e. infection of the upper and/or lower respiratory tract). Secondary outcomes were incidence of URI and LRI, analysed separately; incidence of Emergency Department attendance and/or hospital admission for ARI; death due to ARI or respiratory failure; use of antibiotics to treat an ARI; absence from work or school due to ARI; incidence of serious adverse events; death due to any cause; and incidence of potential adverse reactions to vitamin D (hypercalcaemia and renal stones).

Synthesis Methods

Data were analysed by DAJ; results were checked and verified by JDS. Our meta-analysis approach followed published guidelines.47 The primary comparison was of participants randomised to vitamin D vs. placebo: this was performed for all of the outcomes listed above. For trials that included higher-dose, lower-dose and placebo arms, data from higher-dose and lower-dose arms were pooled for analysis of the primary comparison. A secondary comparison of participants randomised to higher vs. lower doses of vitamin D was performed for the primary outcome only. A log odds ratio and its standard error was calculated for each outcome within each trial from the proportion of participants experiencing one or more events in the intervention vs. control arm. These were meta-analysed in a random effects model using the Metan package48 within STATA IC v14.2 to obtain a pooled odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval and a measure of heterogeneity summarized by the I2 statistic and its corresponding P value. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) was calculated using the Visual Rx NNT calculator (http://www.nntonline.net/visualrx/) where meta-analysis of dichotomous outcomes revealed a statistically significant beneficial effect of allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo.

Exploration of variation in effects

To explore reasons for heterogeneity of effect of the intervention between trials we performed a stratified analysis according to baseline vitamin D status (serum 25[OH]D <25 vs. 25-49.9 vs. 50-74.9 vs. ≥75 nmol/L) and sub-group analyses according to vitamin D dosing regimen (administration of daily vs. weekly vs. monthly or less frequent doses), dose size (daily equivalent <400 IU vs. 400-1000 IU vs. 1001-2000 IU vs. >2,000 IU) and trial duration (≤12 months vs. >12 months). The thresholds for baseline 25(OH)D concentration used in sub-group analyses were selected a priori on the basis that they represent cut-offs that are commonly used to distinguish profound vitamin D deficiency (<25 nmol/L), moderate vitamin D deficiency (25-49.9 nmol/L) and sub-optimal vitamin D status (so-called ‘vitamin D insufficiency’, 50-74.9 nmol/L).49 An exploratory analysis restricted to studies with optimal frequency, dose size and duration was also performed.

To investigate factors associated with heterogeneity of effect between subgroups of trials, we performed multivariable meta-regression analysis on trial-level characteristics, namely, dose frequency, dose size and trial duration, to produce an adjusted odds ratio, a 95% confidence interval and a P value for interaction for each factor. Independent variables were dichotomised to create a more parsimonious model (serum 25(OH)D of <25 vs. ≥25 nmol/L; administration of daily vs. non-daily doses; daily equivalent of ≤1000 IU vs. >1000 IU; and trial duration of ≤12 vs. >12 months). The meta-regression analysis excluded data from one trial that included higher-dose, lower-dose and placebo arms,18 since the higher-dose and lower-dose arms spanned the 1,000 IU/day cut-off, rendering it unclassifiable for the purposes of this analysis.

Quality Assessment Across Studies

For the primary analysis, the likelihood of publication bias was investigated through the construction of a contour-enhanced funnel plot.50 We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness and publication bias)51 to assess the quality of the body of evidence contributing to analyses of the primary efficacy outcome and major secondary outcomes of our meta-analysis.

Sensitivity analyses

We conducted two exploratory sensitivity analyses for the primary comparison of the primary outcome: one excluded RCTs where risk of bias was assessed as being unclear; the other excluded RCTs in which incidence of ARI was not the primary or co-primary outcome.

Role of the funding source

This study was conducted without external funding.

Results

Study selection and data obtained

The study selection process is illustrated in Figure 1. Our search identified a total of 1,519 unique studies that were assessed for eligibility; of these, 40 studies with a total of 30,956 randomised participants fulfilled eligibility criteria, of which 31 compared effects of a single vitamin D regimen vs. placebo only,5-17,19,20,22,23,25-28,31,33,36,38-40,42-45 4 compared effects of higher-dose, lower-dose and placebo arms, 18,21,24,41 and 5 compared effects of higher-vs. lower-dose regimens of vitamin D only.29,32,34,35,37 Aggregate data were sought and obtained for all but 1 study.45 Data for the primary outcome (proportion of participants with one or more ARI) was obtained for 29,841 (96.5%) of 30,909 participants in 39 studies. Reasons for excluding potentially relevant studies are presented in Table S1.

Figure 1:
Figure 1: Flow chart of study selection

Study and participant characteristics

Characteristics of the 39 studies contributing data to this meta-analysis and their participants are presented in Table 1. Trials were conducted in 17 different countries on 4 continents, and enrolled participants of both sexes from birth to 95 years of age. Baseline serum 25(OH)D concentrations were determined in 32 of 39 trials: mean baseline 25(OH)D concentration ranged from 18.9 to 90.9 nmol/L (to convert to ng/ml, divide by 2.496). Thirty-eight studies administered oral vitamin D3 to participants in the intervention arm, while 1 study administered oral 25(OH)D. Vitamin D was given as monthly to 3-monthly bolus doses in 12 studies; as weekly doses in 5 studies; as daily doses in 20 studies; and as a combination of bolus and daily doses in 2 studies. Trial duration ranged from 8 weeks to 3 years. Incidence of ARI was primary or co-primary outcome for 21 studies, and a secondary outcome for 18 studies.

View this table:
Table 1:

Characteristics of the 39 eligible trials and their participants

Risk of Bias Within Studies

Details of the risk of bias assessment are provided in supplementary Table S2. Two trials were assessed as being at unclear risk of bias due to high loss to follow-up. In the trial by Laaksi and colleagues,8 37% of randomised participants were lost to follow-up. In the trial by Dubnov-Raz and colleagues,26 52% of participants did not complete all symptom questionnaires. All other trials were assessed as being at low risk of bias for all seven aspects assessed.

Overall Results, Primary Outcome

For the primary comparison of vitamin D vs. placebo control, supplementation resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one ARI (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.81 to 0.98; 27,815 participants in 34 studies; Figure 2, Table 2; Cates Plot, Figure S1). Heterogeneity of effect was moderate (I2 40.0%, P for heterogeneity 0.009). The associated NNT was 36 (95% CI 20 to 206).

View this table:
Table 2: Placebo controlled RCTs:

Proportion of participants experiencing at least one acute respiratory infection, overall and stratified by potential effect-modifiers

Figure 2:
Figure 2: Forest plot of placebo-controlled RCTs reporting proportion of participants experiencing 1 or more acute respiratory infection.

*This analysis includes data from the subset of ViDiFlu trial participants who were randomised to vitamin D vs. placebo control.

For the secondary comparison of higher-vs. lower-dose vitamin D, we observed no statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants with at least one ARI (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.04; 2,889 participants in 9 studies; I2 8.0%, P for heterogeneity 0.37; Figure S2).

Sub-group analyses, Primary Outcome

To investigate reasons for the observed heterogeneity of effect for the primary comparison of vitamin D vs. placebo control, we stratified this analysis by one participant-level factor (baseline vitamin D status) and by three trial-level factors (dose frequency, dose size, and trial duration). Results are presented in Table 2 and Figures S3-S6. No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for participants with baseline 25(OH)D <25 nmol/L (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16; 3,617 participants in 19 studies), 25-49.9 nmol/L (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; 9,128 participants in 27 studies), 50-74.9 nmol (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; 5,303 participants in 28 studies), or ≥75 nmol/L (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; 2,978 participants in 24 studies; Figure S3). With regard to dosing frequency, a statistically significant protective effect was seen for trials where vitamin D was given daily (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; 4,005 participants in 18 studies), but not for trials in which it was given weekly (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.06; 12,562 participants in 5 studies), or monthly to 3-monthly (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; 11,248 participants in 11 studies; Figure S4). Statistically significant protective effects of the intervention were also seen in trials where vitamin D was administered at daily equivalent doses of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 2,305 participants in 10 studies), but not <400 IU (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.37; 2,308 participants in 2 studies), 1001-2000 IU (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.06; 15,702 participants in 14 studies), or >2000 IU (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.31; 6,906 participants in 7 studies; Figure S5). Statistically significant protective effects were also seen for trials with a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94; 9,061 participants in 28 studies) but not in those lasting >12 months (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; 18,754 participants in 6 studies; Figure S6). An exploratory analysis restricted to placebo-controlled trials investigating effects of daily dosing at doses of 400-1000 IU/day with duration ≤12 months showed a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one ARI (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; 1,232 participants in 8 studies; Figure S7; Cates Plot, Figure S1). Heterogeneity of effect was low (I2 0.0%, P for heterogeneity 0.67). The associated NNT was 8 (95% CI 6 to 15).

Multivariable Meta-Regression Analysis

Multivariable meta-regression analysis of trial-level sub-groups did not identify a statistically significant interaction between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, size or trial duration (Table S3).

Secondary outcomes

Meta-analysis of secondary outcomes was performed for results of placebo-controlled trials only; results are presented in Table 3. Overall, without consideration of participant- or trial-level factors, vitamin D supplementation did not have a statistically significant effect on the proportion of participants with one or more URI, LRI, courses of antimicrobials for ARI, work/school absences due to ARI, hospitalisations or emergency department attendances for ARI, serious adverse events of any cause, death due to ARI or respiratory failure, death due to any cause, or episodes of hypercalcaemia or renal stones.

View this table:
Table 3: Placebo-controlled studies:

Secondary outcomes

Risk of bias across studies

A funnel plot for the proportion of participants experiencing at least one ARI showed left-sided asymmetry, raising the possibility that small trials showing non-protective effects of vitamin D may not have been included in the meta-analysis (Figure S8). An Egger’s regression test for publication bias52 confirmed asymmetry (P=0.002). Accordingly, the quality of the body of evidence contributing to analyses of the primary efficacy outcome and major secondary outcomes was downgraded to moderate (Table S4).

Sensitivity Analyses

Results of exploratory sensitivity analyses are presented in Table S5. Meta-analysis of the proportion of participants in placebo-controlled trials experiencing at least one ARI, excluding 2 studies assessed as being at unclear risk of bias,8,26 revealed protective effects of vitamin D supplementation consistent with the main analysis (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.997; 27,626 participants in 32 studies). Sensitivity analysis for the same outcome, excluding 17 placebo-controlled trials that investigated ARI as a secondary outcome, did not show a statistically significant protective effect (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 7,343 participants in 17 studies).

Discussion

This updated meta-analysis of RCTs of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of ARI includes data from an additional 18,908 participants in 14 studies published since December 2015, when we performed the final literature search for our prior individual participant data meta-analysis.30 For expediency during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used a trial-level approach for this update, which includes data from a total of 29,841 participants in 39 trials. Overall, we report a modest statistically significant protective effect of vitamin D supplementation, as compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98). As expected, there was significant heterogeneity (P=0.009) across trials, which might have led to an under-estimate of the protective effect. On the other hand, a funnel plot revealed evidence of publication bias, which might have led to an over-estimate of the protective effect. In contrast to findings of our previous meta-analysis,30 we did not observed enhanced protection in those with the lowest 25(OH)D levels at baseline. However, there was evidence that efficacy of vitamin D supplementation varied according to dosing regimen and trial duration, with protective effects associated with daily administration of doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D given for ≤12 months. An exploratory analysis restricted to data from 8 trials fulfilling these design criteria revealed a larger protective effect (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75) without significant heterogeneity across trials (P for heterogeneity 0.67).

The magnitude of the overall protective effect seen in the current analysis (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98) is similar to the value reported in our previous meta-analysis of individual participant data (adjusted OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96).30 In keeping with our previous study, the point estimate for this effect was lower among those with baseline 25(OH)D <25 nmol/L than in those with higher baseline vitamin D status. However, in contrast to our previous finding, a statistically significant protective effect of vitamin D was not seen in those with the lowest 25(OH)D concentrations. This difference reflects the inclusion of null data from three new RCTs in which vitamin D was given in relatively high doses at weekly or monthly intervals over 2-3 years. 40,42,44 Null results of these studies contrast with protective effects reported from earlier trials in which smaller daily doses of vitamin D were given over shorter periods. 8,9,13,16 These differing findings suggest that the frequency, amount and duration of vitamin D supplementation may be key determinants of its protective efficacy. In keeping with this hypothesis, statistically significant protective effects of vitamin D were seen for meta-analysis of trials where vitamin D was given daily; where it was given at doses of 400-1000 IU/day; and where it was given for 12 months or less. When results of trials that investigated daily administration of 400-1000 IU over ≤12 months were pooled in an exploratory meta-analysis, a protective effect was seen (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75) with low heterogeneity (I2 0.0%, P for heterogeneity 0.67) and a NNT of 8 (95% CI 6 to 15).

The current study has several strengths: it contains the very latest RCT data available in this fast-moving field, including findings from a soon-to-be published very large trial conducted using directly-observed, higher-dose, weekly vitamin D supplementation in very deficient children.42 The inclusion of additional studies allowed us to analyse results of placebo-controlled studies vs. high-dose / low-dose studies separately, and gave us the power to investigate reasons for heterogeneity of effect observed across trials. For example, we could distinguish the effects of daily vs. weekly dosing, which were previously pooled.30

Our work also has limitations. Given the need to generate a rapid update of our previous work in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we meta-analysed aggregate (trial-level) data, rather than individual participant data; this allowed us to proceed rapidly, without the delays introduced by the need to establish multiple data sharing agreements. However, we did contact authors to get unpublished estimates of effect that were stratified by pre-defined baseline 25(OH)D levels, harmonised across studies: thus, we were able to provide accurate data for the major participant-level effect-modifier of interest. Despite the large number of trials overall, relatively few compared effects of lower-vs. higher-dose vitamin D: our power for this secondary comparison was therefore limited. We lacked the individual participant data to investigate race/ethnicity and obesity as potential effect-modifiers. We also could not account for other factors that might influence the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for ARI prevention (e.g., taking the supplement with or without food) or secular trends that would influence trials, such as the increased societal use of vitamin D supplements; 53 concurrent use of standard dose vitamin D supplements or multivitamins in the “placebo” group would effectively render these as high-vs. low-dose trials and potentially drive results toward the null. A final limitation relates to the funnel plot, which suggests that the overall effect size may have been over-estimated due to publication bias.

In summary, this updated meta-analysis of data from RCTs of vitamin D for the prevention of ARI showed a statistically significant overall protective effect of the intervention. The number needed to treat to prevent one ARI was 36. The protective effect was heterogenous across trials; it also may have been over-estimated due to publication bias. In contrast to findings of our previous meta-analysis of individual participant data, we did not see a protective effect of vitamin D supplementation among those with the lowest baseline vitamin D status. The vitamin D dosing regimen of most benefit was daily and used standard doses (e.g., 400 to 1000 IU) for up to 12 months. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation.

Data Availability

The study dataset is available from d.a.jolliffe{at}qmul.ac.uk.

Author Contributions

DAJ and ARM wrote the study protocol and designed statistical analyses. DAJ, CAC and ARM assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion and performed risk of bias assessments. Statistical analyses were done by DAJ; results were checked and verified by JDS. DAJ and ARM wrote the first draft of the report. All authors revised it critically for important intellectual content, gave final approval of the version to be published, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work were appropriately investigated and resolved.

Competing Interests

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form. No author has had any financial relationship with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years. No author has had any other relationship, or undertaken any activity, that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Transparency Declaration

DAJ and ARM are the manuscript’s guarantors and they affirm that this is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported and that no important aspects of the study have been omitted. All analyses were pre-specified in the study protocol, other than the exploratory analyses whose results are presented in Table S5 and Figure S7.

Data Sharing

the study dataset is available from d.a.jolliffe{at}qmul.ac.uk.

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted without external funding. DAJ is supported by a Barts Charity Lectureship (ref MGU045). ARM is supported by the United Kingdom Office for Students. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Barts Charity or the Office for Students. Sources of support for individual trials are detailed in Supplementary Material. We thank Dr Emma C Goodall (GlaxoSmithKline plc) for contributing data. We also thank all the people who participated in primary randomised controlled trials, and the teams who conducted them.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Lanham-New SA, Webb AR, Cashman KD, et al. Vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2 virus/COVID-19 disease. BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health 2020 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000089
  2. 2.↵
    Greiller CL, Martineau AR. Modulation of the Immune Response to Respiratory Viruses by Vitamin D. Nutrients 2015;7(6):4240–70. doi: 10.3390/nu7064240 [published Online First: 2015/06/03]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Jolliffe DA, Griffiths CJ, Martineau AR. Vitamin D in the prevention of acute respiratory infection: systematic review of clinical studies. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2013;136:321–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2012.11.017 [published Online First: 2012/12/12]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Pham H, Rahman A, Majidi A, et al. Acute Respiratory Tract Infection and 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Concentration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2019;16(17) doi: 10.3390/ijerph16173020 [published Online First: 2019/08/24]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    Li-Ng M, Aloia JF, Pollack S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of vitamin D3 supplementation for the prevention of symptomatic upper respiratory tract infections. Epidemiol Infect 2009;137(10):1396–404. doi: 10.1017/S0950268809002404 [published Online First: 2009/03/20]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    Urashima M, Segawa T, Okazaki M, et al. Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;91(5):1255–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.
    Manaseki-Holland S, Qader G, Isaq Masher M, et al. Effects of vitamin D supplementation to children diagnosed with pneumonia in Kabul: a randomised controlled trial. Trop Med Int Health 2010;15(10):1148–55. doi: TMI2578 [pii] 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2010.02578.x [published Online First: 2010/08/21]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Laaksi I, Ruohola JP, Mattila V, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory tract infection: a randomized, double-blinded trial among young Finnish men. J Infect Dis 2010;202(5):809–14. doi: 10.1086/654881 [published Online First: 2010/07/17]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Majak P, Olszowiec-Chlebna M, Smejda K, et al. Vitamin D supplementation in children may prevent asthma exacerbation triggered by acute respiratory infection. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011;127(5):1294–6. doi: S0091-6749(10)01957-3 [pii] 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.12.016 [published Online First: 2011/02/15]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.
    Trilok Kumar G, Sachdev HS, Chellani H, et al. Effect of weekly vitamin D supplements on mortality, morbidity, and growth of low birthweight term infants in India up to age 6 months: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2011;342:d2975. [published Online First: 2011/06/02]
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.
    Lehouck A, Mathieu C, Carremans C, et al. High doses of vitamin D to reduce exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2012;156(2):105–14. doi: 10.1059/0003-4819-156-2-201201170-00004 [published Online First: 2012/01/18]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.
    Manaseki-Holland S, Maroof Z, Bruce J, et al. Effect on the incidence of pneumonia of vitamin D supplementation by quarterly bolus dose to infants in Kabul: a randomised controlled superiority trial. Lancet 2012;379(9824):1419–27. doi: S0140-6736(11)61650-4 [pii] 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61650-4 [published Online First: 2012/04/13]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    Camargo CA, Jr.., Ganmaa D, Frazier AL, et al. Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation and risk of acute respiratory infection in Mongolia. Pediatrics 2012;130(3):e561–7. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-3029 peds.2011-3029 [pii] [published Online First: 2012/08/22]
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Murdoch DR, Slow S, Chambers ST, et al. Effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on upper respiratory tract infections in healthy adults: the VIDARIS randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012;308(13):1333–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.125051367547 [pii] [published Online First: 2012/10/04]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.
    Bergman P, Norlin AC, Hansen S, et al. Vitamin D3 supplementation in patients with frequent respiratory tract infections: a randomised and double-blind intervention study. BMJ Open 2012;2(6):e001663. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001663 e001663 [pii] bmjopen-2012-001663 [pii] [published Online First: 2012/12/18]
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    Marchisio P, Consonni D, Baggi E, et al. Vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk of acute otitis media in otitis-prone children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2013;32(10):1055–60. doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e31829be0b0 [published Online First: 2013/05/23]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Rees JR, Hendricks K, Barry EL, et al. Vitamin D3 Supplementation and Upper Respiratory Tract Infections in a Randomized, Controlled Trial. Clin Infect Dis 2013 doi: 10.1093/cid/cit549 [published Online First: 2013/09/10]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Tran B, Armstrong BK, Ebeling PR, et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on antibiotic use: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2014;99(1):156–61. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.063271 [published Online First: 2013/10/11]
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Goodall EC, Granados AC, Luinstra K, et al. Vitamin D3 and gargling for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infections: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Infectious Diseases 2014;14:273. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-14-273 [published Online First: 2014/06/03]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Urashima M, Mezawa H, Noya M, et al. Effects of vitamin D supplements on influenza A illness during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic: a randomized controlled trial. Food & Function 2014;5(9):2365–70. doi: 10.1039/c4fo00371c [published Online First: 2014/08/05]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    Grant CC, Kaur S, Waymouth E, et al. Reduced primary care respiratory infection visits following pregnancy and infancy vitamin D supplementation: a randomised controlled trial. Acta Paediatr 2014 doi: 10.1111/apa.12819 [published Online First: 2014/10/07]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    Martineau AR, James WY, Hooper RL, et al. Vitamin D3 supplementation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ViDiCO): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Respiratory medicine 2015;3(2):120–30. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70255-3 [published Online First: 2014/12/06]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    Martineau AR, MacLaughlin BD, Hooper RL, et al. Double-blind randomised placebo- controlled trial of bolus-dose vitamin D3 supplementation in adults with asthma (ViDiAs). Thorax 2015;70(5):451–7. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206449 [published Online First: 2015/03/01]
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    Martineau AR, Hanifa Y, Witt KD, et al. Double-blind randomised controlled trial of vitamin D3 supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infection in older adults and their carers (ViDiFlu). Thorax 2015;70(10):953–60. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-206996 [published Online First: 2015/06/10]
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    Simpson SJ, van der Mei I, Stewart N, et al. Weekly cholecalciferol supplementation results in significant reductions in infection risk among the vitamin D deficient: results from the CIPRIS pilot RCT. BMC Nutrition 2015;1(7)
  26. 26.↵
    Dubnov-Raz G, Rinat B, Hemila H, et al. Vitamin D supplementation and upper respiratory tract infections in adolescent swimmers: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatric Exercise Science 2015;27(1):113–9. doi: 10.1123/pes.2014-0030 [published Online First: 2014/07/23]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.
    Denlinger LC, King TS, Cardet JC, et al. Vitamin D Supplementation and the Risk of Colds in Patients with Asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016;193(6):634–41. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201506-1169OC [published Online First: 2015/11/06]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Tachimoto H, Mezawa H, Segawa T, et al. Improved Control of Childhood Asthma with Low- Dose, Short-Term Vitamin D Supplementation: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo- Controlled Trial. Allergy 2016 doi: 10.1111/all.12856 [published Online First: 2016/02/04]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    Ginde AA, Blatchford P, Breese K, et al. High-Dose Monthly Vitamin D for Prevention of Acute Respiratory Infection in Older Long-Term Care Residents: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2017;65(3):496–503. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14679 [published Online First: 2016/11/20]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Martineau AR, Jolliffe DA, Hooper RL, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ 2017;356:i6583. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6583 [published Online First: 2017/02/17]
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    Gupta P, Dewan P, Shah D, et al. Vitamin D Supplementation for Treatment and Prevention of Pneumonia in Under-five Children: A Randomized Double-blind Placebo Controlled Trial. Indian Pediatr 2016;53(11):967–76. doi: 10.1007/s13312-016-0970-5 [published Online First: 2016/11/28]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.↵
    Aglipay M, Birken CS, Parkin PC, et al. Effect of High-Dose vs Standard-Dose Wintertime Vitamin D Supplementation on Viral Upper Respiratory Tract Infections in Young Healthy Children. JAMA 2017;318(3):245–54. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.8708 [published Online First: 2017/07/19]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Arihiro S, Nakashima A, Matsuoka M, et al. Randomized Trial of Vitamin D Supplementation to Prevent Seasonal Influenza and Upper Respiratory Infection in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2019;25(6):1088–95. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izy346 [published Online First: 2019/01/03]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    Hibbs AM, Ross K, Kerns LA, et al. Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Recurrent Wheezing in Black Infants Who Were Born Preterm: The D-Wheeze Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2018;319(20):2086–94. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.5729 [published Online First: 2018/05/26]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.↵
    Lee MT, Kattan M, Fennoy I, et al. Randomized phase 2 trial of monthly vitamin D to prevent respiratory complications in children with sickle cell disease. Blood Adv 2018;2(9):969–78. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2017013979 [published Online First: 2018/05/02]
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    Loeb M, Dang AD, Thiem VD, et al. Effect of Vitamin D supplementation to reduce respiratory infections in children and adolescents in Vietnam: A randomized controlled trial. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2019;13(2):176–83. doi: 10.1111/irv.12615 [published Online First: 2018/10/18]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    Rosendahl J, Valkama S, Holmlund-Suila E, et al. Effect of Higher vs Standard Dosage of Vitamin D3 Supplementation on Bone Strength and Infection in Healthy Infants: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatrics 2018;172(7):646–54. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0602 [published Online First: 2018/05/31]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    Shimizu Y, Ito Y, Yui K, et al. Intake of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 Reduces Duration and Severity of Upper Respiratory Tract Infection: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel Group Comparison Study. J Nutr Health Aging 2018;22(4):491–500. doi: 10.1007/s12603-017-0952-x [published Online First: 2018/03/28]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.
    Aloia JF, Islam S, Mikhail M. Vitamin D and Acute Respiratory Infections-The PODA Trial. Open Forum Infectious Diseases 2019;6(9):ofz228. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz228 [published Online First: 2019/10/30]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    Camargo CA, Sluyter J, Stewart AW, et al. Effect of monthly high-dose vitamin D supplementation on acute respiratory infections in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis 2020;71:311–17. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz801 [published Online First: 2019/08/20]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    Hauger H, Ritz C, Mortensen C, et al. Winter cholecalciferol supplementation at 55 degrees N has little effect on markers of innate immune defense in healthy children aged 4-8 years: a secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Nutrition 2019;58(4):1453–62. doi: 10.1007/s00394-018-1671-8 [published Online First: 2018/03/25]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    Ganmaa D, Uyanga B, Zhou X, et al. Vitamin D Supplements and Prevention of Tuberculosis Infection and Disease. In press 2020
  43. 43.
    Mandlik R, Mughal Z, Khadilkar A, et al. Occurrence of infections in schoolchildren subsequent to supplementation with vitamin D-calcium or zinc: a randomized, double- blind, placebo-controlled trial. Nutr Res Pract 2020;14(2):117–26. doi: 10.4162/nrp.2020.14.2.117 [published Online First: 2020/04/08]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.↵
    Rake C, Gilham C, Bukasa L, et al. High-dose oral vitamin D supplementation and mortality in people aged 65-84 years: the VIDAL cluster feasibility RCT of open versus double- blind individual randomisation. Health Technol Assess 2020;24(10):1–54. doi: 10.3310/hta24100 [published Online First: 2020/02/25]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    Ducharme FM, Jensen M, Mailhot G, et al. Impact of two oral doses of 100,000 IU of vitamin D3 in preschoolers with viral-induced asthma: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Trials 2019;20(1):138. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3184-z [published Online First: 2019/02/20]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.↵
    Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928 [published Online First: 2011/10/20]
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    Higgins JPT TJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane 2019
  48. 48.↵
    Harris R, Bradburn M, Deeks J, et al. METAN: Stata module for fixed and random effects meta-analysis, revised 23 Sep 2010. Statistical Software Components S456798. Boston College Department of Economics 2006.
  49. 49.↵
    Pearce SH, Cheetham TD. Diagnosis and management of vitamin D deficiency. BMJ 2010;340:b5664.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61(10):991–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.↵
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD [published Online First: 2008/04/26]
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315(7109):629–34. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [published Online First: 1997/10/06]
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    Kim HJ, Giovannucci E, Rosner B, et al. Longitudinal and secular trends in dietary supplement use: Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, 1986- 2006. J Acad Nutr Diet 2014;114(3):436–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2013.07.039 [published Online First: 2013/10/15]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.
    Jetter A, Egli A, Dawson-Hughes B, et al. Pharmacokinetics of oral vitamin D(3) and calcifediol. Bone 2014;59:14-9. [published Online First: 2014/02/12]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted July 17, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials
David A Jolliffe, Carlos A Camargo Jr, John D Sluyter, Mary Aglipay, John F Aloia, Peter Bergman, Camilla T Damsgaard, Gal Dubnov-Raz, Susanna Esposito, Davaasambuu Ganmaa, Clare Gilham, Adit A Ginde, Cameron C Grant, Christopher J Griffiths, Anna Maria Hibbs, Wim Janssens, Anuradha Vaman Khadilkar, Ilkka Laaksi, Margaret T Lee, Mark Loeb, Jonathon L Maguire, David T Mauger, Paweł Majak, Semira Manaseki-Holland, David R Murdoch, Akio Nakashima, Rachel E Neale, Christine Rake, Judy R Rees, Jenni Rosendahl, Robert Scragg, Dheeraj Shah, Yoshiki Shimizu, Steve Simpson-Yap, Geeta Trilok Kumar, Mitsuyoshi Urashima, Adrian R Martineau
medRxiv 2020.07.14.20152728; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.14.20152728
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area