5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The role of vitamin D in prevention of COVID-19 and its severity: an umbrella review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          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

          Background and aim:

          Vitamin D is known to modulate immune response and its deficiency was associated with respiratory distress in patients hospitalized for pneumonia. Nevertheless, numerous reviews on vitamin D in COVID-19 patients have shown conflicting results, as previously reported also for other respiratory diseases (e.g., influenza).

          Methods:

          This umbrella review aims to assess whether low serum 25-OHD is associated with susceptibility to COVID 19, their severity, and mortality. A total of 1559 studies were excluded after the title, abstract and full-text articles screening and 9 papers were included in this review: 2 systematic reviews and 7 metanalysis.

          Results:

          The findings of this review that summarized studies from 5 WHO regions (European Region, Region of the Americas, South-East Asia Region, Eastern Mediterranean Region, Western Pacific Region) to exclusion only African region, show that low serum 25-OHD levels are associated with higher infection risks for COVID-19.

          Conclusions:

          Although the umbrella findings indicate a potential role of vitamin D deficiency in COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients and showing an association between Vitamin D supplementation and COVID-19 severity, however, more robust data from randomized controlled trials are further needed to confirm a possible association with the mortality rates. (www.actabiomedica.it)

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

          The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach.

            With the increase in the number of systematic reviews available, a logical next step to provide decision makers in healthcare with the evidence they require has been the conduct of reviews of existing systematic reviews. Syntheses of existing systematic reviews are referred to by many different names, one of which is an umbrella review. An umbrella review allows the findings of reviews relevant to a review question to be compared and contrasted. An umbrella review's most characteristic feature is that this type of evidence synthesis only considers for inclusion the highest level of evidence, namely other systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A methodology working group was formed by the Joanna Briggs Institute to develop methodological guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review, including diverse types of evidence, both quantitative and qualitative. The aim of this study is to describe the development and guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review.
              • 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.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Acta Biomed
                Acta Biomed
                Acta Bio Medica : Atenei Parmensis
                Mattioli 1885 (Italy )
                0392-4203
                2531-6745
                2021
                01 October 2021
                : 92
                : Suppl 6
                : e2021451
                Affiliations
                [1 ] University of Rome “Foro Italico”, Rome, Italy
                [2 ] Scientific direction of “Elixir di Salute”, Bologna, Italy
                [3 ] University Hospital “Agostino Gemelli” Foundation, Rome, Italy
                [4 ] University of Rome Tre, Rome, Italy
                [5 ] Sant’Andrea Hospital A.O.U., Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Vincenzo Romano Spica, MD Public Health Unit. Department of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, University of Rome “Foro Italico”, Rome, Italy Piazza Lauro de Bosis, 6 Rome, 00135 Italy Phone: +39-0636733247 E-mail: vincenzo.romanospica@ 123456uniroma4.it
                Article
                ACTA-92-451
                10.23750/abm.v92iS6.12216
                8851027
                34739473
                b11b75f3-f3d2-44a7-a47a-513b78bb3188
                Copyright: © 2021 ACTA BIO MEDICA SOCIETY OF MEDICINE AND NATURAL SCIENCES OF PARMA

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

                History
                : 13 January 2020
                : 30 January 2021
                Categories
                Reviews/Focus on

                sars-cov-2,covid-19,review,prevention,cause of death,quality of life,vitamin d

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log