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:8
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
大幅提高文件上传限制,最高150M (2024-4-1)

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
刚刚
棉花糖完成签到 ,获得积分10
刚刚
土豆泥拌土豆块完成签到 ,获得积分10
1秒前
1秒前
2秒前
lll发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
辛坦夫完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
柯轲珂发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
4秒前
德德发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
丘比特应助Ash采纳,获得10
7秒前
李健的小迷弟应助Swuliu采纳,获得10
8秒前
Orange应助幻月采纳,获得10
10秒前
didida发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
Zfy完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
xwz626完成签到,获得积分10
13秒前
13秒前
Rita发布了新的文献求助10
14秒前
14秒前
14秒前
didida完成签到,获得积分10
17秒前
Ash发布了新的文献求助10
18秒前
19秒前
Zfy发布了新的文献求助10
20秒前
look完成签到,获得积分10
21秒前
迷人素完成签到 ,获得积分10
21秒前
刘佳婷发布了新的文献求助10
22秒前
liian7应助SICHEN采纳,获得20
23秒前
从容芷容应助SICHEN采纳,获得20
23秒前
zho关闭了zho文献求助
25秒前
大个应助露似珍珠月似弓采纳,获得10
26秒前
儒雅的雁山完成签到 ,获得积分10
27秒前
PhDshi应助机器猫采纳,获得10
28秒前
Ash完成签到,获得积分20
29秒前
星辰大海应助科研进化中采纳,获得10
36秒前
36秒前
好纠结完成签到,获得积分10
36秒前
orixero应助酷酷的友灵采纳,获得10
37秒前
可罗雀完成签到,获得积分10
37秒前
APPLE完成签到 ,获得积分10
37秒前
高分求助中
Evolution 10000
ISSN 2159-8274 EISSN 2159-8290 1000
Becoming: An Introduction to Jung's Concept of Individuation 600
Ore genesis in the Zambian Copperbelt with particular reference to the northern sector of the Chambishi basin 500
A new species of Coccus (Homoptera: Coccoidea) from Malawi 500
A new species of Velataspis (Hemiptera Coccoidea Diaspididae) from tea in Assam 500
PraxisRatgeber: Mantiden: Faszinierende Lauerjäger 500
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 医学 生物 材料科学 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 基因 遗传学 催化作用 物理化学 免疫学 量子力学 细胞生物学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3161007
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 2812311
关于积分的说明 7895133
捐赠科研通 2471181
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1315908
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 631071
版权声明 602086