Vitamin D deficiency and lung function decline in healthy individuals: A large longitudinal observation study
Respiratory Medicine. Vol 182, June 2021, 106395, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106395
Kyung-MinAhna1 Sun-SinKimb1 Suh-Young Leea So-HeeLeebHeung-WooParkacd
- Opinion: If unable to stop smoking,
or are a previous smoker,
or are getting 2nd hand smoke,
increase Vitamin D and perhaps Omega-3 (which decreases depression, inflammation)
- Vitamin D prevents smoke lung damage in mice (If you must smoke, take vitamin D) – Nov 2019
- Low Vitamin D is worse for your health than smoking
- 26 health factors increase the risk of COVID-19 – all are proxies for low vitamin D
- CDC list of high-risk for COVID-19 includes Smoking
- Each ng extra vitamin D associated with better breathing (and 2X better for smokers) – March 2018
It looks feasible to add vitamin D to cigarette filters so that Vitamin D would be automatically inhaled while smoking, but US tobacco companies appear unwilling to do anything which indicates that smoking is bad for health
A reliable evidence from a comprehensive large-scale study supporting associations between serum vitamin D (25-hydroxyvitamin D) level (SVDL) and lung function decline (LFD) in healthy individuals has been unavailable. Using a well-established health screening database, we assessed the associations between SVDL and LFDs, measured as the forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and FEV1/FVC ratio.
Serial SVDL and lung function data were analyzed using linear mixed models, which were performed in smokers and non-smokers, separately. Vitamin D-deficient individuals (VDDs) were defined when their SVDLs were consistently lower than 20 ng/mL at all measurements.
A total of 1371 individuals were analyzed. The mean FEV1 decline rates of VDDs and vitamin D-normal individuals (VDNs) in smokers were −33.35 mL/year (95% CI: 39.44 to −27.26 mL/year) and −15.61 mL/year (95% CI: 27.29 to −4.21 mL/year) respectively, over a mean of 6.29 years of observation with statistical significance (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant differences observed between decline rates of FEV1 in non-smokers. Similarly, FVC decline rates of VDDs were significantly greater than those of VDNs only in smokers (P < 0.001). However, FEV1/FVC ratio decline rates showed no significant difference between VDDs and VDNs regardless of their smoking status.
Consistently low SVDLs predicted more rapid FEV1 and FVC declines in smokers. However, FEV1/FVC decline rate was not associated with SVDL. SVDL may be used to identify healthy smoking individuals at high risk for accelerated LFD.