Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of stratified aggregate data.

• Tác giả: Mary Aglipay, John F Aloia, Peter Bergman, Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari, Arturo Borzutzky, Vadim Y Bubes, Carlos A Camargo, Camilla T Damsgaard, Gal Dubnov-Raz, Francine M Ducharme, Susanna Esposito, Davaasambuu Ganmaa, Clare Gilham, Adit A Ginde, Inbal Golan-Tripto, Emma C Goodall, Cameron C Grant, Christopher J Griffiths, Anna Maria Hibbs, Wim Janssens, David A Jolliffe, Anuradha Vaman Khadilkar, Geeta Trilok Kumar, Ilkka Laaksi, Margaret T Lee, Mark Loeb, Jonathon L Maguire, Paweł Majak, Semira Manaseki-Holland, JoAnn E Manson, Adrian R Martineau, David T Mauger, David R Murdoch, Akio Nakashima, Rachel E Neale, Hai Pham, Christine Rake, Judy R Rees, Jenni Rosendahl, Robert Scragg, Dheeraj Shah, Yoshiki Shimizu, Steve Simpson-Yap, John D Sluyter, Mitsuyoshi Urashima
• Ngôn ngữ: eng
• Thông tin xuất bản: England : The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology , 2025
• Bộ sưu tập: NCBI
• ID: 753529

Tóm tắt

 BACKGROUND: A 2021 meta-analysis of 37 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a statistically significant protective effect of the intervention (odds ratio [OR] 0·92 [95% CI 0·86 to 0·99]). Since then, six eligible RCTs have been completed, including one large trial (n=15 804). We aimed to re-examine the link between vitamin D supplementation and prevention of ARIs. METHODS: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of data from RCTs of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. Subgroup 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, dosing regimen, or age. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov between May 1, 2020 (end-date of search of our previous meta-analysis) and April 30, 2024. No language restrictions were imposed. Double-blind RCTs supplementing vitamin D for any duration, with placebo or lower-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if 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 and age, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42024527191). FINDINGS: We identified six new RCTs (19 337 participants). Data were obtained for 16 085 (83·2%) participants in three new RCTs and combined with data from 48 488 participants in 43 RCTs identified in our previous meta-analysis. For the primary comparison of any vitamin D versus placebo, the intervention did not statistically significantly affect overall ARI risk (OR 0·94 [95% CI 0·88-1·00], p=0·057
  40 studies
  61 589 participants
  I INTERPRETATION: This updated meta-analysis yielded a similar point estimate for the overall effect of vitamin D supplementation on ARI risk to that obtained previously, but the 95% CI for this effect estimate now includes 1·00, indicating no statistically significant protection. FUNDING: None.