Habitual use of vitamin D supplements and risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection: a prospective study in UK Biobank
Am J Clin Nutr. 2021 Jan 29;nqaa381. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa381
Hao Ma 1, Tao Zhou 1, Yoriko Heianza 1, Lu Qi 1 2 3
Note: Only 363 of 7934 people in UK Biobank were taking some amount of Vitamin D in 2006-2010
Biobank information is extremely out of date, and should be ignored
It is amazing that it gets past peer-review
Virus meta-analyses
- COVID-19 5X more likely to be severe if low vitamin D (23 studies) – 13th meta-analysis July 2021
- Severe COVID-19 3.5 more likely if low vitamin D (30 studies) – meta-analysis July 2021
- COVID-19 patients who had supplemented with Vitamin D were 3X less likely to enter ICU – June 2021
- COVID-19 mortality 3X more likely if low vitamin D (999,179 people) – meta-analysis March 29, 2021
- COVID-19 was 2.6X more severe if very low Vitamin D (43 studies) – meta-analysis March 26, 2021
- Low Vitamin D associated with 2.7X more severe COVID-19 – 12th MA March 5, 2021
- Vitamin D supplementation fights COVID-19 – 11th meta-analysis Jan 24, 2021
- 3.7 X less likely to die of COVID-19 if supplemented with Vitamin D - meta-analysis Jan 5, 2021
- Less likely to test positive for COVID-19 if higher Vitamin D – meta-analysis Jan 6, 2021
- Vitamin D reduces COVID-19 by 80 percent - anonymous meta-analysis - Jan 5, 2021
- COVID-19 1.7X more likely to be severe if low Vitamin D - meta-analysis Oct 2020
- Low Vitamin D associated 1.8X increased risk of COVID-19 death in hospital – meta-analysis Nov 4, 2020
- Acute viral respiratory infections reduced by Vitamin D - overview of 20 reviews - Aug 2020
- Prudent to consider that Vitamin D has a role in COVID-19 – meta-analysis – Aug 7, 2020
- Risk of enveloped virus infection is increased 50 percent if poor Vitamin D Receptor - meta-analysis Dec 2018
- Hepatitis B patients have 2 ng lower level of Vitamin D – meta-analysis June 2019
- Influenza Vaccination not benefited by lowish levels of vitamin D – meta-analysis March 2018
COVID-19 treated by Vitamin D - studies, reports, videos
As of Aug 1, the page had: 34 trials, 6 trial results, 21 meta-analyses and reviews, 62 observations, 34 recommendations, 55 associations, 89 speculations, 45 videos see related: Governments, HealthProblems, Hospitals, Dark Skins, 26 risk factors are ALL associated with low Vit D, Recent Virus pages Fight COVID-19 with 50K Vit D weekly Vaccine problems
Download the PDF from VitaminDWiki
Background: Previous studies have related vitamin D supplementation to a lower risk of acute respiratory tract infection. Emerging evidence suggests that vitamin D insufficiency is related to a higher risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection.
Objectives: We aimed to investigate the prospective association between habitual use of vitamin D supplements and risk of COVID-19 infection, and assess whether such an association differed according to the different levels of circulating and genetically predicted vitamin D.
Methods: This study included 8297 adults who have records of COVID-19 test results from UK Biobank (from 16 March 2020 to 29 June 2020). The use of vitamin D supplements, circulating vitamin D levels, and main covariates were measured at baseline (2006-2010). Genetically predicted vitamin D levels were evaluated by genetic risk score.
Results: After adjustment for covariates, the habitual use of vitamin D supplements was significantly associated with a 34% lower risk of COVID-19 infection (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.97; P = 0.034). Circulating vitamin D levels at baseline or genetically predicted vitamin D levels were not associated with the risk of COVID-19 infection. The association between the use of vitamin D supplements and the risk of COVID-19 infection did not vary according to the different levels of circulating or genetically predicted vitamin D (P-interactions = 0.75 and 0.74, respectively).
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that habitual use of vitamin D supplements is related to a lower risk of COVID-19 infection, although we cannot rule out the possibility that the inverse association is due to residual confounding or selection bias. Further clinical trials are needed to verify these results.