TY - JOUR
T1 - Vitamin D supplementation and total cancer incidence and mortality by daily vs. infrequent large-bolus dosing strategies
T2 - a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
AU - Keum, N.
AU - Chen, Q. Y.
AU - Lee, D. H.
AU - Manson, J. E.
AU - Giovannucci, E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Background: Efficacy of vitamin D supplementation may vary by dosing strategies and adiposity. To address such heterogeneity, we performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation and total cancer outcomes. Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched through January 2022. Summary relative risk (SRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the DerSimonian–Laird random-effects model. Results: For total cancer incidence (12 trials), the SRR for vitamin D supplementation vs. control group was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.94–1.03; P = 0.54; I2 = 0%). No significant association was observed regardless of whether the supplement was given daily or infrequently in a large-bolus. Yet, among trials testing daily supplementation, a significant inverse association was observed among normal-weight individuals (SRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64–0.90; P = 0.001, I2 = 0%), but not among overweight or obese individuals (Pheterogeneity = 0.02). For total cancer mortality (six trials), the SRR was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.82–1.03; P = 0.17; I2 = 33%). A significant inverse association emerged (SRR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78–0.96; P = 0.007; I2 = 0%) among studies testing daily supplementations but not among studies that testing infrequent large-bolus supplementations (Pheterogeneity = 0.09). Conclusions: For vitamin D supplementation, daily dosing, but not infrequent large-bolus dosing, reduced total cancer mortality. For total cancer incidence, bolus dosing did not reduce the risk and the benefits of daily dosing were limited to normal-weight individuals.
AB - Background: Efficacy of vitamin D supplementation may vary by dosing strategies and adiposity. To address such heterogeneity, we performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation and total cancer outcomes. Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched through January 2022. Summary relative risk (SRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the DerSimonian–Laird random-effects model. Results: For total cancer incidence (12 trials), the SRR for vitamin D supplementation vs. control group was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.94–1.03; P = 0.54; I2 = 0%). No significant association was observed regardless of whether the supplement was given daily or infrequently in a large-bolus. Yet, among trials testing daily supplementation, a significant inverse association was observed among normal-weight individuals (SRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64–0.90; P = 0.001, I2 = 0%), but not among overweight or obese individuals (Pheterogeneity = 0.02). For total cancer mortality (six trials), the SRR was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.82–1.03; P = 0.17; I2 = 33%). A significant inverse association emerged (SRR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78–0.96; P = 0.007; I2 = 0%) among studies testing daily supplementations but not among studies that testing infrequent large-bolus supplementations (Pheterogeneity = 0.09). Conclusions: For vitamin D supplementation, daily dosing, but not infrequent large-bolus dosing, reduced total cancer mortality. For total cancer incidence, bolus dosing did not reduce the risk and the benefits of daily dosing were limited to normal-weight individuals.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85131523304&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41416-022-01850-2
DO - 10.1038/s41416-022-01850-2
M3 - Article
C2 - 35676320
AN - SCOPUS:85131523304
SN - 0007-0920
JO - British Journal of Cancer
JF - British Journal of Cancer
ER -