21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of a test-and-treat approach to vitamin D supplementation on risk of all cause acute respiratory tract infection and covid-19: phase 3 randomised controlled trial (CORONAVIT)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To determine the effect of population level implementation of a test-and-treat approach to correction of suboptimal vitamin D status (25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) <75 nmol/L) on risk of all cause acute respiratory tract infection and covid 19.

          Design

          Phase 3 open label randomised controlled trial.

          Setting

          United Kingdom.

          Participants

          6200 people aged ≥16 years who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline.

          Interventions

          Offer of a postal finger prick test of blood 25(OH)D concentration with provision of a six month supply of lower dose vitamin D (800 IU/day, n=1550) or higher dose vitamin D (3200 IU/day, n=1550) to those with blood 25(OH)D concentration <75 nmol/L, compared with no offer of testing or supplementation (n=3100). Follow-up was for six months.

          Main outcome measures

          The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with at least one swab test or doctor confirmed acute respiratory tract infection of any cause. A secondary outcome was the proportion of participants with swab test confirmed covid-19. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals. The primary analysis was conducted by intention to treat.

          Results

          Of 3100 participants offered a vitamin D test, 2958 (95.4%) accepted and 2674 (86.3%) had 25(OH)D concentrations <75 nmol/L and received vitamin D supplements (n=1328 lower dose, n=1346 higher dose). Compared with 136/2949 (4.6%) participants in the no offer group, at least one acute respiratory tract infection of any cause occurred in 87/1515 (5.7%) in the lower dose group (odds ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.66) and 76/1515 (5.0%) in the higher dose group (1.09, 0.82 to 1.46). Compared with 78/2949 (2.6%) participants in the no offer group, 55/1515 (3.6%) developed covid-19 in the lower dose group (1.39, 0.98 to 1.97) and 45/1515 (3.0%) in the higher dose group (1.13, 0.78 to 1.63).

          Conclusions

          Among people aged 16 years and older with a high baseline prevalence of suboptimal vitamin D status, implementation of a population level test-and-treat approach to vitamin D supplementation was not associated with a reduction in risk of all cause acute respiratory tract infection or covid-19.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04579640.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Random Forests

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Vaccine hesitancy: the next challenge in the fight against COVID-19

            Vaccine hesitancy remains a barrier to full population inoculation against highly infectious diseases. Coincident with the rapid developments of COVID-19 vaccines globally, concerns about the safety of such a vaccine could contribute to vaccine hesitancy. We analyzed 1941 anonymous questionnaires completed by healthcare workers and members of the general Israeli population, regarding acceptance of a potential COVID-19 vaccine. Our results indicate that healthcare staff involved in the care of COVID-19 positive patients, and individuals considering themselves at risk of disease, were more likely to self-report acquiescence to COVID-19 vaccination if and when available. In contrast, parents, nurses, and medical workers not caring for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients expressed higher levels of vaccine hesitancy. Interventional educational campaigns targeted towards populations at risk of vaccine hesitancy are therefore urgently needed to combat misinformation and avoid low inoculation rates.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

              Objectives To assess the overall effect of vitamin D supplementation on risk of acute respiratory tract infection, and to identify factors modifying this effect. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) from randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry from inception to December 2015. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trials of supplementation with vitamin D3 or vitamin D2 of any duration were eligible for inclusion if they had been approved by a research ethics committee and if data on incidence of acute respiratory tract infection were collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Results 25 eligible randomised controlled trials (total 11 321 participants, aged 0 to 95 years) were identified. IPD were obtained for 10 933 (96.6%) participants. Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory tract infection among all participants (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.96; P for heterogeneity <0.001). In subgroup analysis, protective effects were seen in those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D without additional bolus doses (adjusted odds ratio 0.81, 0.72 to 0.91) but not in those receiving one or more bolus doses (adjusted odds ratio 0.97, 0.86 to 1.10; P for interaction=0.05). Among those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D, protective effects were stronger in those with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels <25 nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 0.17 to 0.53) than in those with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥25 nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.75, 0.60 to 0.95; P for interaction=0.006). Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 0.80 to 1.20, P=0.83). The body of evidence contributing to these analyses was assessed as being of high quality. Conclusions Vitamin D supplementation was safe and it protected against acute respiratory tract infection overall. Patients who were very vitamin D deficient and those not receiving bolus doses experienced the most benefit. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014013953.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: lecturer
                Role: doctoral student
                Role: research assistant
                Role: postdoctoral researcher
                Role: research assistant
                Role: senior lecturer
                Role: doctoral student
                Role: research assistant
                Role: communications consultant
                Role: consultant clinical scientist
                Role: senior biomedical scientist
                Role: communications and contracting officer
                Role: professor
                Role: postdoctoral researcher
                Role: programme manager
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: senior lecturer
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2022
                07 September 2022
                07 September 2022
                : 378
                : e071230
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AT, UK
                [2 ]Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
                [3 ]Jane Symons Media, London, UK
                [4 ]Clinical Biochemistry Department, Black Country Pathology Services, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK
                [5 ]Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
                [6 ]Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK
                [7 ]Health Data Research UK BREATHE Hub, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
                [8 ]Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                [9 ]Centre for Public Health (NI), Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
                [10 ]Health Data Research UK BREATHE Hub, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
                [11 ]Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                [12 ]Health Data Research UK BREATHE Hub, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: A R Martineau a.martineau@ 123456qmul.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3592-1945
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6901-3665
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0369-2885
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0816-9276
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2535-4545
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2885-1299
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9300-5569
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5225-000X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1218-1008
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0606-8167
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7022-3056
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7273-8691
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5387-1721
                Article
                bmj-2022-071230.R1 jold071230
                10.1136/bmj-2022-071230
                9449358
                36215226
                143e1b6d-8cbe-4277-994b-1d7cad9f58fd
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 14 July 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100015652, Barts Charity;
                Categories
                Research
                2472

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article