The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, Volume 349, Issue 3, March 2015, Pages 245-262, https://doi.org/10.1097/MAJ.0000000000000360
lMalcolm D.Kearns BS Jessica A.Alvarez PhD Natan Seidel BS VinTangpricha MD, PhD
- Vitamin D and Respiratory Tract Infections – meta-analysis with charts June 2013
- Respiratory infections reduced only 20 percent by Vitamin D (ignored dose size, duration, type, etc) – meta-analysis Jan 2019
- Respiratory Tract visits 2.5 less likely with vitamin D: Pregnancy 2000 IU, Infant 800 IU – RCT Oct 2014
- 100 % of Acute Respiratory Failure patients had low vitamin D - April 2012
- All items in Breathing and Vitamin D
- Acute lower respiratory infection 5X more frequent with low vitamin D intake – June 2012
- Hypothesis: Respiratory problems will decrease with increased vitamin D – Jan 2012
- Respiratory Virus risk reduced 35 percent by Vitamin D (14,000 IU weekly) – RCT Oct 2018
- Respiratory diseases helped by vitamin D if initially have low level – RCT review Jan 2015
- Common cold incidence reduced by two thirds (500 IU for IBD with low vitamin D) – RCT Jan 2019
- Inflammatory diseases: review of vitamin D, with many tables – May 2014 which has the following summary table
Observational studies have linked vitamin D status and infectious disease. This association is supported by the presence of the vitamin D receptor and CYP27B1 in immune cells. This review aims to consolidate data from clinical trials that used vitamin D for the treatment or prevention of infectious disease.
The authors searched the term "(vitamin D OR ergocalciferol OR cholecalciferol OR vitamin D2 OR vitamin D3 OR calcitriol) AND (infection OR tuberculosis OR sepsis OR pneumonia)" with limits preset to manuscripts published in English and with human subjects. They identified controlled trials that measured infectious outcomes (eg, incidence and severity of disease, time to disease resolution or recurrence, measures of clinical improvement, mortality). Studies that used analog, topical or micronutrient formulations of vitamin D, assessed only vitamin D status or lacked a comparison group were excluded. The references from eligible manuscripts and from 2 recent reviews were scanned for additional manuscripts.
One thousand two hundred eighty-four manuscripts were identified with our search terms, with 60 papers still eligible after review of the title and abstract. Full review of these papers, their references and 2 related reviews yielded 38 manuscripts.
Although some prospective studies show positive results regarding vitamin D on infectious disease, several robust studies are negative. Factors such as high variability between studies, the difference in individual responsiveness to vitamin D and study designs that do not primarily investigate infectious outcomes may mask the effects of vitamin D on infections.