Vitamin D for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

医学 不利影响 炎症性肠病 维生素D与神经学 维生素 安慰剂 内科学 临床试验 随机对照试验 克罗恩病 疾病 胃肠病学 病理 替代医学
作者
Chris Wallace,Morris Gordon,Vassiliki Sinopoulou,Berkeley N. Limketkai
出处
期刊:The Cochrane library [Elsevier]
卷期号:2023 (10) 被引量:14
标识
DOI:10.1002/14651858.cd011806.pub2
摘要

Background Vitamin D possesses immunomodulatory properties and has been implicated in the pathogenesis and severity of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Animal studies and emerging epidemiological evidence have demonstrated an association between vitamin D deficiency and worse disease activity. However, the role of vitamin D for the treatment of IBD is unclear. Objectives To evaluate the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment for IBD. Search methods We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was Jun 2023. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people of all ages with active or inactive IBD comparing any dose of vitamin D with another dose of vitamin D, another intervention, placebo, or no intervention. We defined doses as: vitamin D (all doses), any‐treatment‐dose vitamin D (greater than 400 IU/day), high‐treatment‐dose vitamin D (greater than 1000 IU/day), low‐treatment‐dose vitamin D (400 IU/day to 1000 IU/day), and supplemental‐dose vitamin D (less than 400 IU/day). Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. clinical response for people with active disease, 2. clinical relapse for people in remission, 3. quality of life, and 4. withdrawals due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 5. disease activity at end of study, 6. normalisation of vitamin D levels at end of study, and 7. total serious adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results We included 22 RCTs with 1874 participants. Study duration ranged from four to 52 weeks. Ten studies enroled people with Crohn's disease (CD), five enroled people with ulcerative colitis (UC), and seven enroled people with CD and people with UC. Seventeen studies included adults, three included children, and two included both. Four studies enroled people with active disease, six enroled people in remission, and 12 enroled both. We assessed each study for risk of bias across seven individual domains. Five studies were at low risk of bias across all seven domains. Ten studies were at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain but with no areas of high risk of bias. Seven studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and assessors. Vitamin D (all doses) versus placebo or no treatment Thirteen studies compared vitamin D against placebo or no treatment. We could not draw any conclusions on clinical response for UC as the certainty of the evidence was very low (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 10.57; 1 study, 60 participants). There were no data on CD. There may be fewer clinical relapses for IBD when using vitamin D compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.96; 3 studies, 310 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low. We could not draw any conclusions on quality of life for IBD (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.13, 95% CI −3.10 to 2.83 (the SMD value indicates a negligent decrease in quality of life, and the corresponding CIs indicate that the effect can range from a large decrease to a large increase in quality of life); 2 studies, 243 participants) or withdrawals due to adverse events for IBD (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.27; 12 studies, 1251 participants; note 11 studies reported withdrawals but recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 1 study rather than 12). The certainty of the evidence was very low. High‐treatment‐dose vitamin D versus low‐treatment‐dose vitamin D Five studies compared high treatment vitamin D doses against low treatment vitamin D doses. There were no data on clinical response. There may be no difference in clinical relapse for CD (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.01; 1 study, 34 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low. We could not draw any conclusions on withdrawals due to adverse events for IBD as the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.08; 3 studies, 104 participants; note 2 studies reported withdrawals but recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 1 study rather than 3). The data on quality of life and disease activity could not be meta‐analysed, were of very low certainty, and no conclusions could be drawn. Any‐treatment‐dose vitamin D versus supplemental‐dose vitamin D Four studies compared treatment doses of vitamin D against supplemental doses. There were no data on clinical response and relapse. There were no data on quality of life that could be meta‐analysed. We could not draw any conclusions on withdrawals due to adverse events for IBD as the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 3.09, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.17; 4 studies, 233 participants; note 3 studies reported withdrawals but recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 1 study rather than 4). Authors' conclusions There may be fewer clinical relapses when comparing vitamin D with placebo, but we cannot draw any conclusions on differences in clinical response, quality of life, or withdrawals, due to very low‐certainty evidence. When comparing high and low doses of vitamin D, there were no data for clinical response, but there may be no difference in relapse for CD. We cannot draw conclusions on the other outcomes due to very low certainty evidence. Finally, comparing vitamin D (all doses) to supplemental‐dose vitamin D, there were no data on clinical relapse or response, and we could not draw conclusions on other outcomes due to very low certainty evidence or missing data. It is difficult to make any clear recommendations for future research on the basis of the findings of this review. Future studies must be clear on the baseline populations, the purpose of vitamin D treatment, and, therefore, study an appropriate dosing strategy. Stakeholders in the field may wish to reach consensus on such issues prior to new studies.
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
爱笑晓曼发布了新的文献求助20
1秒前
老大蒂亚戈应助YJ888采纳,获得10
2秒前
JamesPei应助潇湘雪月采纳,获得10
2秒前
bbczj发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
5秒前
6秒前
南风知我意完成签到,获得积分20
7秒前
段一帆发布了新的文献求助30
9秒前
wangqinlei完成签到 ,获得积分10
9秒前
fenghp发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
王馨雨发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
12秒前
CipherSage应助ccalvintan采纳,获得10
13秒前
13秒前
雪天的阳完成签到 ,获得积分10
15秒前
16秒前
17秒前
17秒前
烟花应助ren采纳,获得10
18秒前
讨厌科研发布了新的文献求助10
18秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
19秒前
苏卿应助科研通管家采纳,获得30
20秒前
fd163c应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
21秒前
香蕉觅云应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
21秒前
思源应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
21秒前
SYLH应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
21秒前
21秒前
CAOHOU应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
21秒前
爆米花应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
21秒前
SYLH应助科研通管家采纳,获得30
21秒前
小蘑菇应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
21秒前
21秒前
殷勤的紫槐完成签到,获得积分10
21秒前
风轻青柠发布了新的文献求助10
22秒前
22秒前
机智冬灵完成签到,获得积分10
23秒前
24秒前
为小嗳打伞完成签到 ,获得积分10
26秒前
小木安华发布了新的文献求助10
26秒前
体贴的之卉完成签到,获得积分20
28秒前
高分求助中
A new approach to the extrapolation of accelerated life test data 1000
ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 12th edition 500
‘Unruly’ Children: Historical Fieldnotes and Learning Morality in a Taiwan Village (New Departures in Anthropology) 400
Indomethacinのヒトにおける経皮吸収 400
Phylogenetic study of the order Polydesmida (Myriapoda: Diplopoda) 370
基于可调谐半导体激光吸收光谱技术泄漏气体检测系统的研究 350
Robot-supported joining of reinforcement textiles with one-sided sewing heads 320
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 遗传学 基因 物理化学 催化作用 冶金 细胞生物学 免疫学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3989390
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3531487
关于积分的说明 11254109
捐赠科研通 3270153
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1804887
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 882087
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 809174