Vitamin D Protects Against Covid-19

[Jinzang]

The paper says it is the first study to show that Vitamin D levels are associated with Covid-19 mortality. Currently I take 5000 IU of Vitamin D EOD and after reading this paper will step it up to every day. The abstract is at the link and the full paper can be downloaded as a pdf there.

This is a retrospective cohort study which included two cohorts (active and expired) of 780 cases with laboratory-confirmed infection of SARS-CoV-2 in Indonesia. Age, sex, co-morbidity, Vitamin D status, and disease outcome (mortality) were extracted from electronic medical records. The aim was to determine patterns of mortality and associated factors, with a special focus on Vitamin D status. Results revealed that majority of the death cases were male and older and had pre-existing condition and below normal Vitamin D serum level. Univariate analysis revealed that older and male cases with pre-existing condition and below normal Vitamin D levels were associated with increasing odds of death. When controlling for age, sex, and comorbidity, Vitamin D status is strongly associated with COVID-19 mortality outcome of cases.

 

[Cataceous]

It's interesting, but the low D status could be more of a marker for underlying health issues. As I recall, the recent large studies are not finding improvements in all-cause mortality with vitamin D supplementation.

 

[Leesto]

There was also a recent article that highlighted the low incidence of COVID-19 cases in equatorial countries. 5 minutes of equatorial sun exposure is estimated to produce about 1000 IU of vitamin D through conversion of cholesterol in the skin layers.

 

[Jinzang]

Dr. Michael Greger says there's good evidence Vitamin D decreases all cause mortality, which was my original reason for taking it. Any benefit in preventing covid-19 is a bonus:

"While the majority of observational studies may show a link, where you simply measure vitamin D levels and disease rates, in only a handful of conditions have interventional studies—where you give people D supplements or placebos then see what happens—proven vitamin D to be effective. One of the conditions for which vitamin D supplements appear to genuinely work, however, is helping to prevent premature death.

"Fifty-six randomized clinical trials involving nearly 100,000 people (mostly women) between the ages of 18 and 107 were randomized to four years of vitamin D supplements or sugar pills. Putting all the studies together showed those given vitamin D supplements lived longer and specifically had a lower risk of dying from cancer. This effect appeared limited to vitamin D3, though, which is the type derived from plants and animals, not vitamin D2, which is the type derived from yeast and mushrooms."

 

[Cataceous]

In a more recent meta-analysis of 33 randomised trials of over 50,000 older adults, supplementation with calcium or vitamin D had no effect on the incidence of fractures. There were also no clear benefits on muscle strength or mobility.
...
It can no longer be recommended for use in other conditions; the vast majority of the positive published studies in 137 diseases were reviewed as spurious. It was widely believed that vitamin D supplements prevented cardiovascular disease, but meta-analyses and large-scale genetic MR studies have ruled this out.

The Largest Ever Clinical Study on Vitamin D Shows We're Wrong About One of Its Main Benefits

We are still in love with vitamins a century after they were discovered, with half the US and UK population taking a supplement.

www.sciencealert.com

Even the possible protective effect against colds and flu is mainly seen in those with serum levels below 10 ng/mL, which is abysmal. [R]

52 trials with a total of 75 454 participants were identified. Vitamin D supplementation was not associated with all cause mortality (risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.02, I2=0%), cardiovascular mortality (0.98, 0.88 to 1.08, 0%), or non-cancer, non-cardiovascular mortality (1.05, 0.93 to 1.18, 0%).[R]

Why Are So Many People Popping Vitamin D?
Have We Been Wrong About the Benefits of Vitamin D?
Vitamin D: Don't Overdo a Good Thing

 

[Guided_by_Voices]

A common flaw in mainstream studies is looking at one variable in a highly complex and interdependent system. This is one of many problems with studies looking at Vitamin D, Omega 3s and various other things alone. Expecting one thing to have a measurable impact on an unhealthy system is not a valid test. Another problem is testing low doses and not including necessary co-factors which AFAIK for D include magnesium, Vitamin A and Vitamin K2. Mid-day sun exposure also provides other things beyond just Vitamin D. The risk/reward appears to be heavily in the direction of getting mid-day sun exposure when possible and supplementing with D and it's co-factors when it's not possible, and doing everything else possible to promote good health.

 

[Cataceous]

A common flaw in mainstream studies is looking at one variable in a highly complex and interdependent system. This is one of many problems with studies looking at Vitamin D, Omega 3s and various other things alone. Expecting one thing to have a measurable impact on an unhealthy system is not a valid test. ...

How would you design the study then?

... Another problem is testing low doses and not including necessary co-factors which AFAIK for D include magnesium, Vitamin A and Vitamin K2. ...

Does this matter in a large study? Isn't the basic claim that more vitamin D is better? Or are you saying that in the absence of sufficient co-factors more vitamin D is worse? There might be something to this with respect to K2, which is said to be keeping excess calcium out of the soft tissues.

... Mid-day sun exposure also provides other things beyond just Vitamin D. ...

A while ago I saw a brief statement of someone's hypothesis of why supplementation is not the equal of sun exposure. I've been unable to relocate it. Maybe you have a reference that's equivalent?