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