Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of stratified aggregate data
David A Jolliffe,Carlos A Camargo Jr,John D Sluyter,Mary Aglipay,John F Aloia,Peter Bergman,Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari,Arturo Borzutzky,Vadim Y Bubes,Camilla T Damsgaard,Francine Ducharme,Gal Dubnov-Raz,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,Anuradha Vaman Khadilkar,Ilkka Laaksi,Margaret T Lee,Mark Loeb,Jonathon L Maguire,Pawel Majak,Semira Manaseki-Holland,JoAnn E Manson,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,Geeta Trilok Kumar,Mitsuyoshi Urashima,Adrian R Martineau
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.18.24313866
2024-09-19
Abstract:Background: A 2021 meta-analysis of 37 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARI) revealed a statistically significant protective effect of the intervention (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86 to 0.99). Since then, 6 eligible RCTs have completed, including one large trial (n=15,804).
Methods: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of data from RCTs of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. 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, dosing regimen or age. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov were searched between May 2020 (previous search) and April 2024. No language restrictions were imposed. Double-blind RCTs supplementing vitamin D for any duration, with placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if approved by 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 6 new RCTs (19,337 participants). Data were obtained for 16,086 (83.2%) participants in 3 new RCTs and combined with data from 48,488 participants in 43 previously identified RCTs. For the primary comparison of any vitamin D vs. placebo, the intervention did not significantly affect overall ARI risk (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.00, P=0.057; 40 studies; I2 26.4%). Pre-specified subgroup analysis did not reveal evidence of effect modification by age, baseline vitamin D status, or dosing regimen. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04; 38 studies; I2 0.0%). A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.002, Egger's test).
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 spans 1.00, indicating no statistically significant protection.
Funding: None