Alkalinization
Analgesics..
Antiandrogens..
Bromhexine
Budesonide
Cannabidiol
Colchicine
Conv. Plasma
Curcumin
Ensovibep
Famotidine
Favipiravir
Fluvoxamine
Hydroxychlor..
Iota-carragee..
Ivermectin
Lactoferrin
Lifestyle..
Melatonin
Metformin
Molnupiravir
Monoclonals..
Nigella Sativa
Nitazoxanide
Nitric Oxide
Paxlovid
Peg.. Lambda
Povidone-Iod..
Quercetin
Remdesivir
Vitamins..
Zinc

Other
Feedback
Home
Home   COVID-19 treatment studies for Vitamin D  COVID-19 treatment studies for Vitamin D  C19 studies: Vitamin D  Vitamin D   Select treatmentSelect treatmentTreatmentsTreatments
Alkalinization Meta Lactoferrin Meta
Melatonin Meta
Bromhexine Meta Metformin Meta
Budesonide Meta Molnupiravir Meta
Cannabidiol Meta
Colchicine Meta Nigella Sativa Meta
Conv. Plasma Meta Nitazoxanide Meta
Curcumin Meta Nitric Oxide Meta
Ensovibep Meta Paxlovid Meta
Famotidine Meta Peg.. Lambda Meta
Favipiravir Meta Povidone-Iod.. Meta
Fluvoxamine Meta Quercetin Meta
Hydroxychlor.. Meta Remdesivir Meta
Iota-carragee.. Meta
Ivermectin Meta Zinc Meta

Other Treatments Global Adoption
All Studies   Meta Analysis   Recent:  
0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ Severe case 2% Improvement Relative Risk Hospitalization 0% Case 0% c19early.org/d Patchen et al. Vitamin D for COVID-19 Sufficiency Are vitamin D levels associated with COVID-19 outcomes? Retrospective study in the United Kingdom No significant difference in outcomes seen Patchen et al., BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health, doi:10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000255 Favors vitamin D Favors control
Genetically predicted serum vitamin D and COVID-19: a Mendelian randomization study
Patchen et al., BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health, doi:10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000255
Patchen et al., Genetically predicted serum vitamin D and COVID-19: a Mendelian randomization study, BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health, doi:10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000255
Feb 2021   Source   PDF  
  Twitter
  Facebook
Share
  All Studies   Meta
UK Biobank Mendelian randomization study not finding significant differences in COVID-19 risk. The number of people predicted to have vitamin D deficiency does not appear to be provided.
Mendelian randomization studies compare the estimated effect of SNPs associated with variation in vitamin D levels on the health outcomes in large numbers of patients. For more background on Mendelian randomization studies and their limitations see [nature.com].
For reasons why Mendelian randomization may fail in this case, see [nutrition.bmj.com]. Authors suggest that it may come down to the use of 25(OH)D concentration in serum as a less than ideal proxy for vitamin D status of cells involved in the immune response. For most other purposes, it may not matter much that unbound (free) 25(OH)D is the better predictor of vitamin D deficiency and the resulting unfavourable outcomes. But for the MR analysis, the genetic instrument is strongly dominated by variation in the GC gene which modulates the concentration of vitamin D-binding protein (VDBP) in blood and thereby indirectly the concentrations of 25(OH)D and 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D. Thus, the common GC alleles rs4588A and rs7041T are both associated with much lower than average vitamin D concentrations. In contrast, directly measured unbound (free) vitamin D concentrations are minimally affected by these alleles, if at all.
[Grant] suggest that the primary reasons for Mendelien randomization failure include that the total SNP-induced variation in 25(OH)D has often been less than assay variance, and that genome-wide association studies of SNP effects have been made on the full range of 25(OH)D levels, while the data is non-linear with a significant percentage in the low and high plateaus of the outcome relationships.
risk of severe case, 2.0% lower, RR 0.98, p = 0.11, inverted to make RR<1 favor high D levels, odds ratio converted to relative risk, >50nmol/L, baseline risk approximated with overall risk.
risk of hospitalization, no change, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, inverted to make RR<1 favor high D levels, odds ratio converted to relative risk, >50nmol/L, baseline risk approximated with overall risk.
risk of case, no change, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, inverted to make RR<1 favor high D levels, odds ratio converted to relative risk, >50nmol/L, baseline risk approximated with overall risk.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates
Patchen et al., 1 Feb 2021, retrospective, United Kingdom, peer-reviewed, 5 authors.
All Studies   Meta Analysis   Submit Updates or Corrections
This PaperVitamin DAll
Abstract: Open access Original research Bonnie K Patchen ‍ ‍,1 Andrew G Clark,2 Nathan Gaddis,3 Dana B Hancock,3 Patricia A Cassano ‍ ‍1,4 To cite: Patchen BK, Clark AG, Gaddis N, et al. Genetically predicted serum vitamin D and COVID-19: a Mendelian randomisation study. BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health 2021;0. doi:10.1136/ bmjnph-2021-000255 ►► Additional supplemental material is published online only. To view, please visit the journal online (http://​dx.d​ oi.​org/​10.​ 1136/​bmjnph-​2021-0​ 00255). 1 Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA 2 Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA 3 GenOmics, Bioinformatics and Translational Research Center, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA 4 Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA Correspondence to Dr Patricia A Cassano, Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA; p​ ac6@​cornell.e​ du Received 11 February 2021 Revised 9 April 2021 Accepted 10 April 2021 © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-­use permitted under CC BY-­NC. No commercial re-­use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. ABSTRACT Objectives To investigate causality of the association of serum vitamin D with the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. Design Two-­sample Mendelian randomisation study. Setting Summary data from genome-­wide analyses in the population-­based UK Biobank and SUNLIGHT Consortium, applied to meta-­analysed results of genome-­wide analyses in the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative. Participants 17 965 COVID-19 cases including 11 085 laboratory or physician-­confirmed cases, 7885 hospitalised cases and 4336 severe respiratory cases, and 1 370 547 controls, primarily of European ancestry. Exposures Genetically predicted variation in serum vitamin D status, instrumented by genome-­wide significant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with serum vitamin D or risk of vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency. Main outcome measures Susceptibility to and severity of COVID-19 infection, including severe respiratory infection and hospitalisation. Results Mendelian randomisation analysis, sufficiently powered to detect effects comparable to those seen in observational studies, provided little to no evidence for an effect of genetically predicted serum vitamin D on susceptibility to or severity of COVID-19 infection. Using SNPs in loci related to vitamin D metabolism as genetic instruments for serum vitamin D concentrations, the OR per SD higher serum vitamin D was 1.04 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.18) for any COVID-19 infection versus population controls, 1.05 (0.84 to 1.31) for hospitalised COVID-19 versus population controls, 0.96 (0.64 to 1.43) for severe respiratory COVID-19 versus population controls, 1.15 (0.99 to 1.35) for COVID-19 positive versus COVID-19 negative and 1.44 (0.75 to 2.78) for hospitalised COVID-19 versus non-­hospitalised COVID-19. Results were similar in analyses using SNPs with genome-­ wide significant associations with serum vitamin D (ie, including SNPs in loci with no known relationship to vitamin D metabolism) and in analyses using SNPs with genome-­ wide significant associations with risk of vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. Conclusions These findings suggest that genetically predicted differences in long-­term vitamin D nutritional status do not causally affect susceptibility to..
Loading..
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. Vaccines and treatments are complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. FLCCC and WCH provide treatment protocols.
  or use drag and drop   
Submit