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
Evidence before this study The active vitamin D metabolite, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, induces innate immune responses to respiratory viruses and bacteria. A previous meta-analysis of individual participant data from 10,933 participants in 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infection demonstrated an overall protective effect (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.96). Sub-group analysis revealed most benefit in those with the lowest vitamin D status at baseline who received daily or weekly supplementation (aOR 0.30, 0.17 to 0.53).
Added value of this study Our meta-analysis of aggregate data from 46,331 participants in 42 randomised controlled trials, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, provides an updated estimate of the protective effects of vitamin D against acute respiratory infection overall, and in sub-groups defined by baseline vitamin D status and dosing frequency, amount and duration.
Implications of all the available evidence Overall, vitamin D reduced the risk of having one or more acute respiratory infections (OR 0.91, 0.84 to 0.99), but there was evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials (P for heterogeneity 0.01). A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry, which may reflect publication bias and/or heterogeneity of effect across trials. 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 in trials where vitamin D was given using a daily dosing regimen (OR 0.75, 0.61 to 0.93); at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 0.55 to 0.89); and for a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 0.72 to 0.93). The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
CRD42020190633
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/190633_PROTOCOL_20200608.pdf
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical permission to contribute data from primary trials was required and obtained for studies by Camargo et al (The Ethics Review Committee of the Mongolian Ministry of Health), Murdoch et al (Southern Health and Disability Ethics Committee, ref. URB/09/10/050/AM02), Rees et al (Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects, Dartmouth College, USA; Protocol # 24381), Tachimoto et al (Ethics committee of the Jikei University School of Medicine, ref 26-333: 7839), Tran et al (QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute Human Research Ethics Committee, P1570) and Urashima et al (Ethics committee of the Jikei University School of Medicine, ref 26-333: 7839).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Main and supplemental files updated in response to reviewer comments
Data Availability
The study dataset is available from d.a.jolliffe{at}qmul.ac.uk.
