Effects of vitamin D supplementation on blood markers in ulcerative colitis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to determine the effect of vitamin D supplementation on blood markers, including calcium levels, in patients with ulcerative colitis.
Results Summary
Vitamin D supplementation significantly improved serum calcium levels (SMD = 0.92, 95% CI (0.09, 1.74), P = 0.03), but the evidence quality for this outcome was classified as very low.
Population
Patients with ulcerative colitis (n = 539 across seven studies).
Effective Dosage
≥ 300,000 IU/day (for vitamin D, not explicitly for calcium).
Duration
Not specified in the abstract.
Interactions
None mentioned.
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vitamin D supplementation | increase | serum vitamin D levels | patients with ulcerative colitis | SMD = 0.69, 95% CI (0.36, 1.03), P < 0.001 | resulted in significant improvements | #1 |
Vitamin D supplementation | decrease | ESR | patients with ulcerative colitis | WMD = -1.10, 95% CI (-1.97, -0.24), P = 0.01 | resulted in significant improvements | #2 |
Vitamin D supplementation | decrease | CRP | patients with ulcerative colitis | SMD = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.67, -0.20), P = 0.0003 | resulted in significant improvements | #3 |
Vitamin D supplementation | increase | Ca | patients with ulcerative colitis | SMD = 0.92, 95% CI (0.09, 1.74), P = 0.03 | resulted in significant improvements | #4 |
Vitamin D supplementation | no change | PTH | patients with ulcerative colitis | - | but not in other outcomes | #5 |
Vitamin D supplementation | no change | UCDAI | patients with ulcerative colitis | - | but not in other outcomes | #6 |
Supplementation with vitamin D at a dose of ≥ 300,000 IU/day | increase | serum vitamin D levels | - | - | can improve | #7 |
Supplementation with a sufficient dose of vitamin D in a short period of time | increase | serum vitamin D levels | - | - | can also improve | #8 |
Vitamin D supplementation | neutral | - | patients with ulcerative colitis | - | seemed to be an effective intervention | #9 |
OBJECTIVE: Observational studies have shown that vitamin D levels are inversely related to ulcerative colitis activity, yet evidence from population interventions remains inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials to clarify the effect of vitamin D on blood markers in patients with ulcerative colitis. METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases were searched for studies published before June 2020. Information was collected regarding serum vitamin D levels, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP), and Ca (calcium), and parathyroid hormone (PTH), and ulcerative colitis disease activity index (UCDAI) research data. RESULTS: Seven studies (n = 539) were included in the meta-analysis. Vitamin D supplementation resulted in significant improvements in the serum vitamin D levels (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.69, 95% CI (0.36, 1.03), P < 0.001), ESR (weighted mean difference (WMD) = - 1.10, 95% CI (- 1.97, - 0.24), P = 0.01), CRP (SMD = - 0.43, 95% CI (- 0.67, - 0.20), P = 0.0003), and Ca (SMD = 0.92, 95% CI (0.09, 1.74), P = 0.03) but not in other outcomes. According to subgroup analysis, supplementation with vitamin D at a dose of ≥ 300,000 IU/day can improve serum vitamin D levels. Supplementation with a sufficient dose of vitamin D in a short period of time can also improve serum vitamin D levels. According to GRADE method evaluation, the evidence quality was classified as low for the Serum Vitamin D Level and ESR, and very low for the CRP, PTH, Ca, and UCDAI. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo control interventions, vitamin D supplementation seemed to be an effective intervention for patients with ulcerative colitis. Different doses of vitamin D and durations of intervention produce different effects. However, due to the limitation of the quality of the included studies, the above conclusions still need to be verified by more high-quality studies and weak clinical recommendations.