Do vitamin D supplements help prevent respiratory tract infections?

Mark J Bolland, Alison Avenell

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A clinically useful effect remains uncertain despite hints in a new analysis

Vitamin D supplementation is a hot topic, provoking passionate arguments for and against widespread supplementation. Recently in The BMJ we discussed the evidence, concluding that vitamin D supplements should not be taken by adults to prevent non-musculoskeletal disease. Three months later comes a meta-analysis by Martineau and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583), concluding that prevention of acute respiratory tract infection is a “major new indication for vitamin D supplementation." Given the short time between articles, why are the conclusions so different? Is this really a major new development, providing the long sought reliable evidence of benefits of vitamin D on a non-skeletal outcome in the general population? Or is it yet another hypothesis about vitamin D supplementation that needs testing in adequately powered randomised controlled trials?
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)j456
JournalBritish Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.)
Volume356
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Feb 2017

Fingerprint

Vitamin D
Respiratory Tract Infections
Meta-Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Population

Keywords

  • Editorial

Cite this

Do vitamin D supplements help prevent respiratory tract infections? / Bolland, Mark J; Avenell, Alison.

In: British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.), Vol. 356, 15.02.2017, p. j456.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

@article{a1273d8135f941358ba0d96b8c2fd166,
title = "Do vitamin D supplements help prevent respiratory tract infections?",
abstract = "A clinically useful effect remains uncertain despite hints in a new analysisVitamin D supplementation is a hot topic, provoking passionate arguments for and against widespread supplementation. Recently in The BMJ we discussed the evidence, concluding that vitamin D supplements should not be taken by adults to prevent non-musculoskeletal disease. Three months later comes a meta-analysis by Martineau and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583), concluding that prevention of acute respiratory tract infection is a “major new indication for vitamin D supplementation.{"} Given the short time between articles, why are the conclusions so different? Is this really a major new development, providing the long sought reliable evidence of benefits of vitamin D on a non-skeletal outcome in the general population? Or is it yet another hypothesis about vitamin D supplementation that needs testing in adequately powered randomised controlled trials?",
keywords = "Editorial",
author = "Bolland, {Mark J} and Alison Avenell",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.j456",
language = "English",
volume = "356",
pages = "j456",
journal = "British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.)",
issn = "0267-0623",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do vitamin D supplements help prevent respiratory tract infections?

AU - Bolland, Mark J

AU - Avenell, Alison

PY - 2017/2/15

Y1 - 2017/2/15

N2 - A clinically useful effect remains uncertain despite hints in a new analysisVitamin D supplementation is a hot topic, provoking passionate arguments for and against widespread supplementation. Recently in The BMJ we discussed the evidence, concluding that vitamin D supplements should not be taken by adults to prevent non-musculoskeletal disease. Three months later comes a meta-analysis by Martineau and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583), concluding that prevention of acute respiratory tract infection is a “major new indication for vitamin D supplementation." Given the short time between articles, why are the conclusions so different? Is this really a major new development, providing the long sought reliable evidence of benefits of vitamin D on a non-skeletal outcome in the general population? Or is it yet another hypothesis about vitamin D supplementation that needs testing in adequately powered randomised controlled trials?

AB - A clinically useful effect remains uncertain despite hints in a new analysisVitamin D supplementation is a hot topic, provoking passionate arguments for and against widespread supplementation. Recently in The BMJ we discussed the evidence, concluding that vitamin D supplements should not be taken by adults to prevent non-musculoskeletal disease. Three months later comes a meta-analysis by Martineau and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583), concluding that prevention of acute respiratory tract infection is a “major new indication for vitamin D supplementation." Given the short time between articles, why are the conclusions so different? Is this really a major new development, providing the long sought reliable evidence of benefits of vitamin D on a non-skeletal outcome in the general population? Or is it yet another hypothesis about vitamin D supplementation that needs testing in adequately powered randomised controlled trials?

KW - Editorial

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.j456

DO - 10.1136/bmj.j456

M3 - Editorial

VL - 356

SP - j456

JO - British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.)

JF - British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.)

SN - 0267-0623

ER -