Winter cholecalciferol supplementation at 55°N has little effect on markers of innate immune defense in healthy children aged 4–8 years: a secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial

Overview of gene expression techniques with an emphasis on vitamin D related studies

Each cell controls when and how its genes must be expressed for proper function. Every function in a cell is driven by signaling molecules through various regulatory cascades. Different cells in a multicellular organism may express very different sets of genes, even though they contain the same DNA. The set of genes expressed in a cell determines the set of proteins and functional RNAs it contains, giving it its unique properties. Malfunction in gene expression harms the cell and can lead to the development of various disease conditions. The use of rapid high-throughput gene expression profiling unravels the complexity of human disease at various levels. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) have been used frequently to understand gene expression homeostasis in various disease conditions. However, more studies are required to validate whether PBMC gene expression patterns accurately reflect the expression of other cells or tissues. Vitamin D, which is responsible for a multitude of health consequences, is also an immune modulatory hormone with major biological activities in the innate and adaptive immune systems. Vitamin D exerts its diverse biological effects in target tissues by regulating gene expression and its deficiency, is recognized as a public health problem worldwide. Understanding the genetic factors that affect vitamin D has the potential benefit that it will make it easier to identify individuals who require supplementation. Different technological advances in gene expression can be used to identify and assess the severity of disease and aid in the development of novel therapeutic interventions. This review focuses on different gene expression approaches and various clinical studies of vitamin D to investigate the role of gene expression in identifying the molecular signature of the disease.

Vitamin D supplementation and immune-related markers: an update from nutrigenetic and nutrigenomic studies

Vitamin D is both a nutrient and a neurologic hormone that plays a critical role in modulating immune responses. While low levels of vitamin D are associated with increased susceptibility to infections and immune-related disorders, vitamin D supplementation has demonstrated immunomodulatory effects that can be protective against various diseases and infections. Vitamin D receptor is expressed in immune cells that have the ability to synthesise the active vitamin D metabolite. Thus, vitamin D acts in an autocrine manner in a local immunologic milieu in fighting against infections. Nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics are the new disciplines of nutritional science that explore the interaction between nutrients and genes using distinct approaches to decipher the mechanisms by which nutrients can influence disease development. Though molecular and observational studies have proved the immunomodulatory effects of vitamin D, only very few studies have documented the molecular insights of vitamin D supplementation. Until recently, researchers have investigated only a few selected genes involved in the vitamin D metabolic pathway that may influence the response to vitamin D supplementation and possibly disease risk. This review summarises the impact of vitamin D supplementation on immune markers from nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics perspective based on evidence collected through a structured search using PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct and Web of Science. The research gaps and shortcomings from the existing data and future research direction of vitamin D supplementation on various immune-related disorders are discussed.

Vitamin D and calcium intakes in general pediatric populations: A French expert consensus paper

OBJECTIVES

Nutritional vitamin D supplements are often used in general pediatrics. Here, the aim is to address vitamin D supplementation and calcium nutritional intakes in newborns, infants, children, and adolescents to prevent vitamin D deficiency and rickets in general populations.

STUDY DESIGN

We formulated clinical questions relating to the following categories: the Patient (or Population) to whom the recommendation will apply; the Intervention being considered; the Comparison (which may be "no action," placebo, or an alternative intervention); and the Outcomes affected by the intervention (PICO). These PICO elements were arranged into the questions to be addressed in the literature searches. Each PICO question then formed the basis for a statement. The population covered consisted of children aged between 0 and 18 years and premature babies hospitalized in neonatology. Two groups were assembled: a core working group and a voting panel from different scientific pediatric committees from the French Society of Pediatrics and national scientific societies.

RESULTS

We present here 35 clinical practice points (CPPs) for the use of native vitamin D therapy (ergocalciferol, vitamin D2 and cholecalciferol, vitamin D3) and calcium nutritional intakes in general pediatric populations.

CONCLUSION

This consensus document was developed to provide guidance to health care professionals on the use of nutritional vitamin D and dietary modalities to achieve the recommended calcium intakes in general pediatric populations. These CPPs will be revised periodically. Research recommendations to study key vitamin D outcome measures in children are also suggested.

How Much Does Serum 25(OH)D Improve by Vitamin D Supplement and Fortified Food in Children? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to respond certain important questions regarding the efficacy of vitamin D fortification and supplementation in children using a meta-analytical approach.

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched, and 2341 studies were found in a preliminary search. After screening of titles and abstracts, 31 studies were selected.

RESULTS

Significant raises in circulating 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations were observed in both groups that took vitamin D supplement (mean difference [MD] 28.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.5-34.9) and vitamin D-fortified foods (MD 20.29, 95% CI 13.3-27.2). The meta-regression revealed a significant association between age of participants (B -1.4, 95% CI -2.8, -0.02, P = 0.047) and dose of vitamin D (B 0.007, 95% CI 0.003, 0.01, P < 0.001), with the effect on serum 25(OH)D concentrations. The analysis showed that serum 25(OH)D concentration increases by 0.7 nmol/L for every 100 IU of vitamin D intake after adjustment for age, baseline serum 25(OH)D and latitude which is far less than the reported amount in adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Altogether, these findings indicate that in a mass vitamin D fortification program, circulating 25(OH)D concentration response in children may be lower in children than in adults and vitamin D supplementation may still be needed in this subpopulation.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a protective effect of this intervention. We aimed to examine the link between vitamin D supplementation and prevention of ARIs in an updated meta-analysis.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for studies listed from database inception to May 1, 2020. Double-blind RCTs of vitamin D₃, vitamin D₂, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) supplementation for any duration, with a placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if they had been approved by a research ethics committee, and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Studies reporting results of long-term follow-up of primary RCTs were excluded. Aggregated study-level data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration and age, were obtained from study authors. Using the proportion of participants in each trial who had one or more ARIs, we did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to estimate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs (primary outcome) compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses were done to estimate whether the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25(OH)D concentration (<25 nmol/L vs 25·0-49·9 nmol/L vs 50·0-74·9 nmol/L vs >75·0 nmol/L), vitamin D dose (daily equivalent of <400 international units [IU] vs 400-1000 IU vs 1001-2000 IU vs >2000 IU), dosing frequency (daily vs weekly vs once per month to once every 3 months), trial duration (≤12 months vs >12 months), age at enrolment (<1·00 years vs 1·00-15·99 years vs 16·00-64·99 years vs ≥65·00 years), and presence versus absence of airway disease (ie, asthma only, COPD only, or unrestricted). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020190633.

FINDINGS

We identified 1528 articles, of which 46 RCTs (75 541 participants) were eligible. Data for the primary outcome were obtained for 48 488 (98·1%) of 49 419 participants (aged 0-95 years) in 43 studies. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the vitamin D supplementation group had one or more ARIs (14 332 [61·3%] of 23 364 participants) than in the placebo group (14 217 [62·3%] of 22 802 participants), with an OR of 0·92 (95% CI 0·86-0·99; 37 studies; I²=35·6%, p_{heterogeneity}=0·018). No significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs was observed for any of the subgroups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects of supplementation were observed in trials in which vitamin D was given in a daily dosing regimen (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·65-0·94]; 19 studies; I²=53·5%, p_{heterogeneity}=0·003), at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (0·70 [0·55-0·89]; ten studies; I²=31·2%, p_{heterogeneity}=0·16), for a duration of 12 months or less (0·82 [0·72-0·93]; 29 studies; I²=38·1%, p_{heterogeneity}=0·021), and to participants aged 1·00-15·99 years at enrolment (0·71 [0·57-0·90]; 15 studies; I²=46·0%, p_{heterogeneity}=0·027). No significant interaction between allocation to the vitamin D supplementation group versus the placebo group and dose, dose frequency, study duration, or age was observed. In addition, no significant difference in the proportion of participants who had at least one serious adverse event in the vitamin supplementation group compared with the placebo group was observed (0·97 [0·86-1·07]; 36 studies; I²=0·0%, p_{heterogeneity}=0·99). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials.

INTERPRETATION

Despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials, vitamin D supplementation was safe and overall reduced the risk of ARI compared with placebo, although the risk reduction was small. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU for up to 12 months, and age at enrolment of 1·00-15·99 years. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires further investigation.

FUNDING

None.

Effects of oral vitamin D supplementation on linear growth and other health outcomes among children under five years of age

BACKGROUND

Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone that is important for its role in calcium homeostasis to maintain skeletal health. Linear growth faltering and stunting remain pervasive indicators of poor nutrition status among infants and children under five years of age around the world, and low vitamin D status has been linked to poor growth. However, existing evidence on the effects of vitamin D supplementation on linear growth and other health outcomes among infants and children under five years of age has not been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of oral vitamin D supplementation on linear growth and other health outcomes among infants and children under five years of age.

SEARCH METHODS

In December 2019, we searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, 14 other electronic databases, and two trials registries. We also searched the reference lists of relevant publications for any relevant trials, and we contacted key organisations and authors to obtain information on relevant ongoing and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of oral vitamin D supplementation, with or without other micronutrients, compared to no intervention, placebo, a lower dose of vitamin D, or the same micronutrients alone (and not vitamin D) in infants and children under five years of age who lived in any country.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 75 studies (187 reports; 12,122 participants) included in the qualitative analysis, 64 studies (169 reports; 10,854 participants) contributed data on our outcomes of interest for meta-analysis. A majority of included studies were conducted in India, USA, and Canada. Two studies reported for-profit funding, two were categorised as receiving mixed funding (non-profit and for-profit), five reported that they received no funding, 26 did not disclose funding sources, and the remaining studies were funded by non-profit funding. Certainty of evidence varied between high and very low across outcomes (all measured at endpoint) for each comparison. Vitamin D supplementation versus placebo or no intervention (31 studies) Compared to placebo or no intervention, vitamin D supplementation (at doses 200 to 2000 IU daily; or up to 300,000 IU bolus at enrolment) may make little to no difference in linear growth (measured length/height in cm) among children under five years of age (mean difference (MD) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 1.68; 3 studies, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably improves length/height-for-age z-score (L/HAZ) (MD 0.11, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.22; 1 study, 1258 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably makes little to no difference in stunting (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; 1 study, 1247 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, vitamin D supplementation results in little to no difference in developing hypercalciuria compared to placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.28 to 14.67; 2 studies, 68 participants; high-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether vitamin D supplementation impacts the development of hypercalcaemia as the certainty of evidence was very low (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.90; 2 studies, 367 participants). Vitamin D supplementation (higher dose) versus vitamin D (lower dose) (34 studies) Compared to a lower dose of vitamin D (100 to 1000 IU daily; or up to 300,000 IU bolus at enrolment), higher-dose vitamin D supplementation (200 to 6000 IU daily; or up to 600,000 IU bolus at enrolment) may have little to no effect on linear growth, but we are uncertain about this result (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.22 to 0.21; 5 studies, 283 participants), and it may make little to no difference in L/HAZ (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.86; 2 studies, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies evaluated stunting. As regards adverse events, higher-dose vitamin D supplementation may make little to no difference in developing hypercalciuria (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.35; 6 studies, 554 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in hypercalcaemia (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.18; 5 studies, 986 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to lower-dose vitamin D supplementation. Vitamin D supplementation (higher dose) + micronutrient(s) versus vitamin D (lower dose) + micronutrient(s) (9 studies) Supplementation with a higher dose of vitamin D (400 to 2000 IU daily, or up to 300,000 IU bolus at enrolment) plus micronutrients, compared to a lower dose (200 to 2000 IU daily, or up to 90,000 IU bolus at enrolment) of vitamin D with the same micronutrients, probably makes little to no difference in linear growth (MD 0.60, 95% CI -3.33 to 4.53; 1 study, 25 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies evaluated L/HAZ or stunting. In terms of adverse events, higher-dose vitamin D supplementation with micronutrients, compared to lower-dose vitamin D with the same micronutrients, may make little to no difference in developing hypercalciuria (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.48; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference in developing hypercalcaemia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90, 1.11; 2 studies, 126 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies measured hyperphosphataemia and three studies measured kidney stones, but they reported no occurrences and therefore were not included in the comparison for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that oral vitamin D supplementation may result in little to no difference in linear growth, stunting, hypercalciuria, or hypercalcaemia, compared to placebo or no intervention, but may result in a slight increase in length/height-for-age z-score (L/HAZ). Additionally, evidence suggests that compared to lower doses of vitamin D, with or without micronutrients, vitamin D supplementation may result in little to no difference in linear growth, L/HAZ, stunting, hypercalciuria, or hypercalcaemia. Small sample sizes, substantial heterogeneity in terms of population and intervention parameters, and high risk of bias across many of the included studies limit our ability to confirm with any certainty the effects of vitamin D on our outcomes. Larger, well-designed studies of long duration (several months to years) are recommended to confirm whether or not oral vitamin D supplementation may impact linear growth in children under five years of age, among both those who are healthy and those with underlying infectious or non-communicable health conditions.

Association Between Vitamin D and Novel SARS-CoV-2 Respiratory Dysfunction - A Scoping Review of Current Evidence and Its Implication for COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVES

To assess the association between vitamin D deficiency and increased morbidity/mortality with COVID-19 respiratory dysfunction.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 24 of April 2020) and PubMed (2020 to 17 of September 2020).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

A search using the search terms: [(cholecalciferol or ergocalciferol or vitamin D2 or vitamin D3 or vitamin D or 25OHD) and (SARS-CoV-2 or coronavirus or COVID or betacoronavirus or MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV or respiratory infection or acute respiratory distress syndrome or ARDS)]m.p. was conducted on the 24/04/2020 (Search A) and 17/09/2020 (Search B).

RESULTS

91 studies were identified as being concerned with Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI)/Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and vitamin D, and 25 publications specifically explored the role of vitamin D deficiency in the development and progression of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 related ARDS. Search "A" identified three main themes of indirect evidence supporting such an association. Consistent epidemiological evidence exists linking low vitamin D levels to increased risk and severity of respiratory tract infections. We also report on plausible biological processes supporting such an association; and present weaker evidence supporting the benefit of vitamin D supplementation in reducing the risk and severity of ARIs. Uncertainty remains about what constitutes an appropriate dosing regimen in relation to reducing risk/severity of ARI/ARDS. More recent evidence (Search B) provided new insights into some direct links between vitamin D and COVID-19; with a number of cohort and ecological studies supporting an association with PCR-positivity for SARS-CoV-2 and vitamin D deficiency. The exact efficacy of the vitamin D supplementation for prevention of, or as an adjunct treatment for COVID-19 remains to be determined; but a number of randomized control trials (RCTs) currently underway are actively investigating these potential benefits.

CONCLUSION

Our rapid review of literature supports the need for observational studies with COVID-19 infected populations to measure and assess vitamin D levels in relation to risk/severity and outcomes; alongside RCTs designed to evaluate the efficacy of supplementation both in preventive and therapeutic contexts. The overlap in the vitamin D associated biological pathways with the dysregulation reported to drive COVID-19 outcomes warrants further investigation.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections revealed a protective effect of the intervention. Since then, 20 new RCTs have been completed.

METHODS

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. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception to 1st May 2020. 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. Aggregate data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020190633).

FINDINGS

We identified 45 eligible RCTs (total 73,384 participants). Data were obtained for 46,331 (98.0%) of 47,262 participants in 42 studies, aged 0 to 95 years. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; P for heterogeneity 0.01). 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 0.93). No significant interaction was seen between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, dose size, or study duration. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.008, Egger's test).

INTERPRETATION

Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. 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.

FUNDING

None.

Factors influencing PCV13 specific antibody response in Danish children starting in day care

This study examines different factors influencing the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) specific antibody response in 8–13 months old Danish children starting in day care. We present secondary findings to the ProbiComp study, which included nose swabs, buccal swabs and blood samples from the children before entering day care (baseline) and again after 6 months. Pneumococci isolated from nose swabs were identified by latex agglutination kit and Quellung reaction. Luminex-based assay was used for antibody measurements against specific anti-pneumococcal capsular IgG. Buccal gene expression was analyzed by qPCR. Statistical analyses were performed in R and included Pearson’s Chi-squared test, Welch two sample t-test and linear regression models. The PCV13 antibody response was unaffected by whether the children were carriers or non-carriers of any pneumococcal serotype. Having siblings increased the risk of carrying serotype 21 before day care (p = 0.020), and having siblings increased the PCV13 antibody response at the end of study (p = 0.0135). Hepatitis B-vaccination increased the PCV13 antibody response before day care attendance (p = 0.005). The expression of IL8 and IL1B was higher in children carrying any pneumococcal serotype at baseline compared to non-carriers (p = 0.0125 and p = 0.0268 respectively).