Adelaide Centre for Neuroscience Research, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Nutr Neurosci. 2020 Apr;23(4):251-280. doi: 10.1080/1028415X.2018.1493807. Epub 2018 Jul 9.
The clinical and preclinical exploration of the therapeutic properties of vitamin D have significantly increased in the past decade, owing to the growing associative evidence suggesting vitamin D is neuroprotective. However, whether depletion of vitamin D contributes to the onset of neurological disorders or is a symptom of neurological disease has yet to be defined. Much remains unclear about the causal role of vitamin D and the method of use and forms of vitamin D. We sought to quantitatively assess if neuroprotective benefits from vitamin D in neurodegenerative diseases are dependent on route of administration: comparing the effect of endogenously sourced vitamin D from UV exposure to exogenously derived vitamin D through synthetic supplementation. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and PsycInfo databases which included both pre-clinical and clinical studies investigating vitamin D in neurodegenerative diseases. Articles were subject to strict inclusion criteria and objectively assessed for quality. Additionally, Medline data was analysed to identify trends in topic publications and linguistic characteristics of papers. From a total of 231 screened articles, we identified 73 appropriate for review based on inclusion criteria: original studies that investigated vitamin D levels or levels of vitamin D supplementation in neurodegenerative diseases or investigated past/present sun exposure in disease cohorts. Results indicate there is insufficient evidence to comprehensively reflect on a potential neuroprotective role for vitamin D and if this was dependent on route of administration. The majority of current data supporting neuroprotective benefits from vitamin D are based on pre-clinical and observational studies. Solid evidence is lacking to support the current hypothesis that the beneficial effect of UV exposure results from the synthesis of vitamin D. Sun exposure, independent of vitamin D production, may be protective against multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. Yet, further research is required to elucidate the beneficial mechanism of actions of UV exposure. The literature of vitamin D and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis was limited, and no conclusions were drawn. Therefore, in cases where UV-derived vitamin D was hypothesized to be the beneficial mediator in the neuroprotective effects of sun exposure, we propose results are based only on associative evidence. On the basis of this systematic review, strong recommendations regarding therapeutic benefits of vitamin D in neurodegenerative disease cannot be made. It is unclear if vitamin D mediates a protective benefit in neurodegenerative disease or whether it is an associative marker of UV exposure, which may contribute to as of yet unidentified neuroprotective factors.
在过去的十年中,由于越来越多的证据表明维生素 D 具有神经保护作用,因此人们对维生素 D 的治疗特性的临床和临床前探索显著增加。然而,维生素 D 的缺乏是否会导致神经退行性疾病的发生,或者是否是神经疾病的症状,尚未确定。关于维生素 D 的因果作用以及使用方法和形式,仍有许多不清楚的地方。我们试图定量评估维生素 D 在神经退行性疾病中的神经保护作用是否取决于给药途径:比较紫外线暴露产生的内源性维生素 D 和通过合成补充获得的外源性维生素 D 的效果。我们系统地搜索了 PubMed、Embase 和 PsycInfo 数据库,其中包括研究维生素 D 在神经退行性疾病中的临床前和临床研究。文章符合严格的纳入标准,并进行了客观的质量评估。此外,还分析了 Medline 数据,以确定主题出版物的趋势和论文的语言特征。从总共筛选出的 231 篇文章中,我们根据纳入标准确定了 73 篇合适的文章进行综述:原始研究调查了神经退行性疾病中的维生素 D 水平或维生素 D 补充水平,或调查了疾病队列中过去/现在的阳光暴露。结果表明,没有足够的证据全面反映维生素 D 的潜在神经保护作用,以及这种作用是否取决于给药途径。目前支持维生素 D 具有神经保护作用的大多数数据都基于临床前和观察性研究。缺乏确凿的证据支持目前的假设,即紫外线照射的有益效果来自于维生素 D 的合成。独立于维生素 D 产生的阳光照射可能对多发性硬化症、帕金森病和阿尔茨海默病具有保护作用。然而,需要进一步的研究来阐明紫外线照射的有益作用机制。关于维生素 D 和肌萎缩侧索硬化症的文献有限,因此没有得出结论。因此,在假设紫外线衍生的维生素 D 是阳光照射的神经保护作用中的有益介导物的情况下,我们提出的结果仅基于关联证据。基于这项系统评价,不能对维生素 D 在神经退行性疾病中的治疗益处做出强烈的推荐。目前尚不清楚维生素 D 是否在神经退行性疾病中起保护作用,或者它是否是紫外线暴露的关联标志物,这可能有助于尚未确定的神经保护因素。