Vitamin D for Treatment and Prevention of Infectious Diseases: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30030, USA.
Endocrine Practice (Impact Factor: 2.59). 07/2009; 15(5):438-49. DOI: 10.4158/EP09101.ORR
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To review the existing human controlled intervention studies of vitamin D as adjunctive therapy in settings of infection and provide recommendations for design and implementation of future studies in this field on the basis of the evidence reviewed.
We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials that studied vitamin D for treatment or prevention of infectious diseases in humans. Studies from 1948 through 2009 were identified through search terms in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE.
Thirteen published controlled trials were identified by our search criteria. Ten trials were placebo controlled, and 9 of the 10 were conducted in a rigorous double-blind design. The selected clinical trials demonstrated substantial heterogeneity in baseline patient demographics, sample size, and vitamin D intervention strategies. Serious adverse events attributable to vitamin D supplementation were rare across all studies. On the basis of studies reviewed to date, the strongest evidence supports further research into adjunctive vitamin D therapy for tuberculosis, influenza, and viral upper respiratory tract illnesses. In the selected studies, certain aspects of study design are highlighted to help guide future clinical research in the field.
More rigorously designed clinical trials are needed for further evaluation of the relationship between vitamin D status and the immune response to infection as well as for delineation of necessary changes in clinical practice and medical care of patients with vitamin D deficiency in infectious disease settings.


Available from: Vin Tangpricha, May 30, 2015
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is noted, that the Lyapunov method appearing in the papers mentioned below in the section of References, applied to the linear systems with interval time-varying delay, may give very conservative stability conditions. The latter statement results from analyzing some benchmarks, used in these papers, for comparison of the obtained results. An insignificant enlargement of the stable delay interval, obtained in the successive paper, does not prevent from the fact, that the obtained stability condition is, as before, very conservative. Therefore some other reference point for estimation of the conservatism should be used. One of the simplest possibilities is the comparison with the stable delay interval for the same system with constant delay. An important role may play some appropriate simulations.
    2014 American Control Conference - ACC 2014; 06/2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Hip fracture is a major and expanding problem faced by orthopaedic surgeons. Accepted risk factors for hip fracture include age, female sex, and osteoporosis. Emerging evidence suggests that hypovitaminosis-D, by contributing to osteoporosis, also may predispose to hip fracture. Despite this theory's obvious interest to orthopaedists, few related studies exist in the orthopaedic literature. Methods: We hypothesized that most patients presenting to our institution with acute hip fracture would have suboptimal levels of vitamin-D, and we sought to identify the incidence of hypovitaminosis-D in this population. We undertook a retrospective chart review of 50 patients for whom vitamin-D levels were obtained after presenting to our institution's emergency department with acute hip fracture. Patients were stratified according to type of fracture, sex, and age. Standard statistical values were calculated. Results: Most (80%) of the study population demonstrated insufficient (32%) or deficient (48%) levels of vitamin-D. Conclusions: Inadequate vitamin-D likely is one of many interrelated risk factors for hip fracture. Further study and the attention of orthopaedists are indicated to detail the nature of this risk and to optimize interventions.
    Current Orthopaedic Practice 01/2012; 23(6):572-576. DOI:10.1097/BCO.0b013e31826fc1e4
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction. Lower 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels have been observed in cirrhotic patients and have been related to disease severity. However, most previous studies included patients with very advanced disease, lacking an adequate control for other variables that could interfere with vitamin D levels. We sought to investigate the prevalence of hypovitaminosis D and the factors related to its occurrence. Material and methods. This cross-sectional study included 133 cirrhotic patients and 30 healthy controls. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine factors associated with 25(OH)D levels below the lower tertile. Thirty patients who had been recently hospitalized were compared in two time points. Results. Mean 25(OH)D levels were 32.34 ± 11.38 in controls and 27.03 ± 6.22 ng/mL in patients (P = 0.018). 25(OH)D levels were < 30 ng/mL in 69.9% and < 20 ng/mL in 14.3% of the sample. Levels of 25(OH)D below the lower tertile (< 24 ng/mL) were independently associated with higher triceps skinfold and non-Caucasian race. Parathyroid hormone above the reference value (65 pg/mL) was found in 24.6% of patients without association with 25(OH)D or severity of liver disease. Significantly lower levels of 25(OH)D were found at the time of acute decompensation of cirrhosis. Conclusions. In conclusion, hypovitaminosis D was prevalent in cirrhotics and it was associated with adiposity and non-Caucasian race in stable patients with relatively well preserved liver function. However, significantly lower levels were observed during admission for acute decompensation suggesting an impact of systemic inflammation or liver dysfunction on 25(OH)D levels.
    Annals of hepatology: official journal of the Mexican Association of Hepatology 01/2015; 14(1):99-107. · 2.19 Impact Factor