Bjelakovic Goran, Gluud Lise Lotte, Nikolova Dimitrinka, Whitfield Kate, Wetterslev Jørn, Simonetti Rosa G, Bjelakovic Marija, Gluud Christian
Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Nis, Zorana Djindjica 81, Nis, Serbia, 18000.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 10;2014(1):CD007470. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007470.pub3.
Available evidence on the effects of vitamin D on mortality has been inconclusive. In a recent systematic review, we found evidence that vitamin D3 may decrease mortality in mostly elderly women. The present systematic review updates and reassesses the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation used in primary and secondary prophylaxis of mortality.
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in healthy adults and adults in a stable phase of disease.
We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index-Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (all up to February 2012). We checked references of included trials and pharmaceutical companies for unidentified relevant trials.
Randomised trials that compared any type of vitamin D in any dose with any duration and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adult participants. Participants could have been recruited from the general population or from patients diagnosed with a disease in a stable phase. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)) or as an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol) or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)).
Six review authors extracted data independently. Random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). To account for trials with zero events, we performed meta-analyses of dichotomous data using risk differences (RDs) and empirical continuity corrections. We used published data and data obtained by contacting trial authors.To minimise the risk of systematic error, we assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. Trial sequential analyses controlled the risk of random errors possibly caused by cumulative meta-analyses.
We identified 159 randomised clinical trials. Ninety-four trials reported no mortality, and nine trials reported mortality but did not report in which intervention group the mortality occurred. Accordingly, 56 randomised trials with 95,286 participants provided usable data on mortality. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 107 years. Most trials included women older than 70 years. The mean proportion of women was 77%. Forty-eight of the trials randomly assigned 94,491 healthy participants. Of these, four trials included healthy volunteers, nine trials included postmenopausal women and 35 trials included older people living on their own or in institutional care. The remaining eight trials randomly assigned 795 participants with neurological, cardiovascular, respiratory or rheumatoid diseases. Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of 4.4 years. More than half of the trials had a low risk of bias. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Forty-five trials (80%) reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants based on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Participants in 19 trials had vitamin D adequacy (at or above 20 ng/mL). Participants in the remaining 26 trials had vitamin D insufficiency (less than 20 ng/mL).Vitamin D decreased mortality in all 56 trials analysed together (5,920/47,472 (12.5%) vs 6,077/47,814 (12.7%); RR 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.99); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%). More than 8% of participants dropped out. 'Worst-best case' and 'best-worst case' scenario analyses demonstrated that vitamin D could be associated with a dramatic increase or decrease in mortality. When different forms of vitamin D were assessed in separate analyses, only vitamin D3 decreased mortality (4,153/37,817 (11.0%) vs 4,340/38,110 (11.4%); RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.98); P = 0.002; I(2) = 0%; 75,927 participants; 38 trials). Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol did not significantly affect mortality. A subgroup analysis of trials at high risk of bias suggested that vitamin D2 may even increase mortality, but this finding could be due to random errors. Trial sequential analysis supported our finding regarding vitamin D3, with the cumulative Z-score breaking the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, corresponding to 150 people treated over five years to prevent one additional death. We did not observe any statistically significant differences in the effect of vitamin D on mortality in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared with trials at high risk of bias; of trials using placebo compared with trials using no intervention in the control group; of trials with no risk of industry bias compared with trials with risk of industry bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared with trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D level below 20 ng/mL at entry compared with trials including participants with vitamin D levels equal to or greater than 20 ng/mL at entry; of trials including ambulatory participants compared with trials including institutionalised participants; of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared with trials without calcium; of trials using a dose below 800 IU per day compared with trials using doses above 800 IU per day; and of trials including only women compared with trials including both sexes or only men. Vitamin D3 statistically significantly decreased cancer mortality (RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 44,492 participants; 4 trials). Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased the risk of nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 42,876 participants; 4 trials). Alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased the risk of hypercalcaemia (RR 3.18 (95% CI 1.17 to 8.68); P = 0.02; I(2) = 17%; 710 participants; 3 trials).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D3 seemed to decrease mortality in elderly people living independently or in institutional care. Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol had no statistically significant beneficial effects on mortality. Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis. Both alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased hypercalcaemia. Because of risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants and of outcome reporting bias due to a number of trials not reporting on mortality, as well as a number of other weaknesses in our evidence, further placebo-controlled randomised trials seem warranted.
关于维生素D对死亡率影响的现有证据尚无定论。在最近的一项系统评价中,我们发现有证据表明维生素D3可能降低主要为老年女性的死亡率。本系统评价更新并重新评估了用于死亡率一级和二级预防的维生素D补充剂的益处和危害。
评估维生素D补充剂对健康成年人及处于疾病稳定期的成年人预防死亡率的有益和有害影响。
我们检索了考克兰图书馆、MEDLINE、EMBASE、LILACS、科学引文索引扩展版和会议论文引文索引 - 科学版(截至2012年2月的所有数据)。我们检查了纳入试验的参考文献以及制药公司,以查找未识别的相关试验。
将任何剂量、任何给药持续时间和途径的任何类型维生素D与安慰剂或无干预措施进行比较的随机试验,受试者为成年参与者。参与者可以从普通人群中招募,也可以从诊断为处于疾病稳定期的患者中招募。维生素D可以作为补充性维生素D(维生素D3(胆钙化醇)或维生素D2(麦角钙化醇))给药,也可以作为维生素D的活性形式(1α - 羟基维生素D(阿法骨化醇)或1,25 - 二羟基维生素D(骨化三醇))给药。
六位综述作者独立提取数据。进行了随机效应和固定效应荟萃分析。对于二分结局,我们计算了风险比(RRs)。为了处理事件数为零的试验,我们使用风险差(RDs)和经验连续性校正对二分数据进行了荟萃分析。我们使用了已发表的数据以及通过联系试验作者获得的数据。为了将系统误差的风险降至最低,我们评估了纳入试验的偏倚风险。试验序贯分析控制了可能由累积荟萃分析导致的随机误差风险。
我们确定了159项随机临床试验。94项试验未报告死亡率,9项试验报告了死亡率,但未报告死亡率发生在哪个干预组。因此,56项随机试验(95,286名参与者)提供了关于死亡率的可用数据。参与者年龄范围为18至107岁。大多数试验纳入了70岁以上的女性。女性的平均比例为77%。其中48项试验随机分配了94,491名健康参与者。其中,4项试验纳入了健康志愿者,9项试验纳入了绝经后女性,35项试验纳入了独居或机构照料的老年人。其余8项试验随机分配了795名患有神经、心血管、呼吸或类风湿疾病的参与者。维生素D的加权平均给药时间为4.4年。超过一半的试验偏倚风险较低。所有试验均在高收入国家进行。45项试验(80%)根据血清25 - 羟基维生素D水平报告了参与者的基线维生素D状态。19项试验中的参与者维生素D充足(达到或高于20 ng/mL)。其余26项试验中的参与者维生素D不足(低于20 ng/mL)。在综合分析的所有56项试验中,维生素D降低了死亡率(5,920/47,472(12.5%)对6,077/47,814(12.7%);RR 0.97(95%置信区间(CI)0.94至0.99);P = 0.02;I(2)=0%)。超过8%的参与者退出。“最差 - 最佳情况”和“最佳 - 最差情况”情景分析表明,维生素D可能与死亡率的显著增加或降低相关。当在单独分析中评估不同形式的维生素D时,只有维生素D3降低了死亡率(4,153/37,817(11.0%)对4,340/38,110(11.4%);RR 0.94(95% CI 0.91至0.98);P = 0.002;I(2)=0%;75,927名参与者;38项试验)。维生素D2、阿法骨化醇和骨化三醇对死亡率没有显著影响。对偏倚风险高的试验进行的亚组分析表明,维生素D2甚至可能增加死亡率,但这一发现可能是由于随机误差。试验序贯分析支持了我们关于维生素D3的发现,累积Z分数突破了试验序贯监测的获益边界,相当于五年内治疗150人可预防一例额外死亡。在低偏倚风险试验与高偏倚风险试验的亚组分析中;在使用安慰剂的试验与对照组无干预措施的试验中;在无行业偏倚风险的试验与有行业偏倚风险的试验中;在评估一级预防的试验与评估二级预防的试验中;在入组时维生素D水平低于20 ng/mL的参与者的试验与入组时维生素D水平等于或高于20 ng/mL的参与者的试验中;在包括非住院参与者的试验与包括机构化参与者的试验中;在使用钙补充剂的试验与不使用钙的试验中;在每天使用剂量低于800 IU的试验与每天使用剂量高于800 IU的试验中;以及在仅包括女性的试验与包括两性或仅男性的试验中,我们未观察到维生素D对死亡率影响的任何统计学显著差异。维生素D3在统计学上显著降低了癌症死亡率(RR 0.88(95% CI 0.78至0.98);P = 0.02;I(2)=0%;44,492名参与者;4项试验)。维生素D3与钙联合使用增加了肾结石的风险(RR 1.17(95% CI 1.02至1.34);P = 0.02;I(2)=0%;42,876名参与者;4项试验)。阿法骨化醇和骨化三醇增加了高钙血症的风险(RR 3.18(95% CI 1.17至8.68);P = 0.02;I(2)=17%;710名参与者;3项试验)。
维生素D3似乎降低了独居或机构照料的老年人的死亡率。维生素D2、阿法骨化醇和骨化三醇对死亡率没有统计学上的显著有益影响。维生素D3与钙联合使用增加了肾结石的风险。阿法骨化醇和骨化三醇均增加了高钙血症的风险。由于参与者大量退出导致的失访偏倚风险以及许多试验未报告死亡率导致的结局报告偏倚风险,以及我们证据中的许多其他弱点,似乎有必要进行进一步的安慰剂对照随机试验。