Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

Vitamin D and COVID-19 in older age: evidence versus expectations

Christopher E Clark, Jane Masoli, Fiona C Warren, James Soothill and John L Campbell
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (702): 10-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp21X714377
Christopher E Clark
Primary Care Research Group, Institute of Health Services Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter.
Roles: Clinical Senior Lecturer in General Practice
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jane Masoli
Primary Care Research Group, Institute of Health Services Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter.
Roles: Clinical Doctoral Fellow and Specialist Registrar in Geriatric Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fiona C Warren
Institute of Health Services Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter.
Roles: Senior Lecturer in Medical Statistics, Primary Care Research Group
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James Soothill
Camelia Botnar Laboratories, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, London.
Roles: Consultant Microbiologist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John L Campbell
Primary Care Research Group, Institute of Health Services Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter.
Roles: Professor of General Practice and Primary Care
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

The current global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection originated in Wuhan, China, during December 2019; over 50 million cases have been diagnosed to date. Older age and comorbidity have proven to be key markers of risk for severity of COVID-19 and mortality,1,2 and residents of care homes have been proven to be at high risk. The Office for National Statistics has recorded 16 111 deaths related to COVID-19 in care home residents in England up to 20 November 2020.3 In the first wave of the pandemic, 46% of all excess deaths in England and Wales up to 7 August occurred in care homes.4 Older age is associated with increasing prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, which can affect up to 40% of care home residents.5 There is considerable overlap between the non-modifiable risk factors for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and those associated with deficiency of vitamin D. For example, age, ethnicity, diabetes, and chronic pulmonary and cardiac diseases; in addition, there is the observed trend towards greater severity of disease in northern latitudes. While these could imply an association between reduced vitamin D levels and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection this may simply be an ecological fallacy.6 Therefore, it is important to understand the strength of evidence provided by epidemiological and observational studies of COVID-19, and compare it with what is known from clinical trials of the impact of vitamin D supplementation on acute respiratory infections, including those due to SARS-CoV-2.

EXPECTATIONS AND MEDIA

Media articles extolling the benefits of vitamin D supplementation in preventing COVID-19 are plentiful. Existing guidelines promote vitamin D supplementation in older adults at risk, including those living in care homes, who experience limited light exposure.7 Advice from Public Health England reiterating this during lockdown, due to restricted time outdoors, has become conflated with impressions that vitamin D has a direct impact on the course of COVID-19. Recent confused statements by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care regarding the status of trials of vitamin D for prevention of COVID-19 have not helped; however, up-to-date rapid evidence reviews have concluded that there is no robust evidence base in older adults to recommend vitamin D supplementation for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.8

EVIDENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INTERVENTIONS

Reduced vitamin D levels are associated with increased risks of respiratory tract infections.9 Geographical, ethnic, and age variations in COVID-19 infections and severity have prompted further research into the potential role of vitamin D; a negative correlation has been observed between estimated national mean vitamin D levels and SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths in 20 European countries.10 Further observational studies, taking account of ethnicity, have linked viral respiratory infection and severity of COVID-19 with deficiency of vitamin D.11,12 A newly updated systematic review continues to show a modest protective effect for vitamin D supplementation on acute respiratory tract infections; however, caution in extrapolating this effect to SARS-CoV-2 infection is emphasised.13 Organisational factors in care homes, such as sharing of agency staff and numbers of professional or lay visitors, have posed additional infection risks during the pandemic, independent of vitamin D status.

Plausible pathophysiological mechanisms have been identified that might account for any association between deficiency of vitamin D and increased risks from SARS-CoV-2, and some evidence exists for beneficial effects with other coronavirus infections.8 Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to immune-dysregulation;1 it plays a role in regulating both innate and adaptive immunity, and immune cell proliferation.14 Although recently updated meta-analytic evidence continues to suggest a modest protective effect against acute respiratory infections for a daily vitamin D dose equivalent of 400–1000 international units (IU) (odds ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval = 0.55 to 0.89),13 there are to the authors’ knowledge, to date, no published adequately powered trial results examining the impact of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality as a primary outcome. Early quasi-experimental pilot evidence suggests a short-term protective effect of prior vitamin D bolus dosing in French older adults living in care homes, resulting in reduced mortality over a mean 36 days of follow-up.15 Many further studies are in progress,6 and large trials addressing a testing and treating strategy, such as the CORONAVIT study, are directly relevant to primary care and may provide clarity on this intervention in the future.16

WORKLOAD

Should trials support the mass testing of older people for vitamin D deficiency as an intervention to prevent acute respiratory tract infections (whether due to SARS-CoV-2 or other infectious causes), this would create significant additional workload and costs for primary care, care homes, and laboratories. Any requirement to determine vitamin D status prior to offering supplementation would present a significant barrier to the roll out of a future intervention. Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance promotes vitamin D supplementation to specific groups without testing for deficiency, unless symptoms or a very high risk of deficiency are identified; however, these recommendations are characterised by poor adherence. These groups include (but are not restricted to) pregnant and breastfeeding women, people aged over 65, people with low exposure to the sun by virtue of being housebound, or who cover their skin for cultural reasons. Supplementation for people of African, African-Caribbean, or South Asian family origin is also emphasised.7 These are groups of people who are also at risk of more severe outcomes from COVID-19.1,2

RECOMMENDATIONS

Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, especially during the winter, is known to be high, and vitamin D supplements are widely available both over the counter and at low acquisition costs to the NHS, typically costing less than £3 (€3.4, $4) per month.17 Therefore, a pragmatic approach during the current pandemic and arguably in perpetuity, is to ensure that we effectively promote preventative supplementation of vitamin D at 400 IU/day across the UK. This is justified on the basis of known effects on bone health and consistent with existing guidance.7

There is a low risk of harm attached to this strategy, and any side-benefit of reducing the impact of COVID-19 in vulnerable groups may also be achieved.

On 28 November 2020, the Department of Health and Social Care announced plans to supply free vitamin D supplements to 2.7 million clinically extremely vulnerable people and care home residents for this winter.18 While we should be mindful that the current evidence base for specific COVID-19 benefits from vitamin D supplementation is weak, we can support our patients in opting in to this service and also encourage people excluded from the clinically extremely vulnerable list to obtain and to start taking supplements.

Vitamin D supplementation represents one potentially useful intervention among many in the campaign against COVID-19. Research, including adequately powered trials, is already under way and the results must be awaited.

Given the known immunochemistry of vitamin D, potential anti-viral effects may be anticipated and support its potential utility as a cheap, available, and accessible therapeutic intervention for vulnerable members of the population.

Notes

Funding

Jane Masoli is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Doctoral Research Fellowship (reference: DRF-2014-07-177). All other authors have no specific funding to declare. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

John L Campbell is the UK principal investigator for the BRACE trial: a trial of BCG vaccination to boost innate immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The trial does not involve vitamin D. See: https://medicine.exeter.ac.uk/research/healthresearch/primarycare/brace. All other authors have declared no competing interests.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2021

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Atkins JL,
    2. Masoli JAH,
    3. Delgado J,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Preexisting comorbidities predicting COVID-19 and mortality in the UK Biobank Community Cohort. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 75, 11, 2224–2230.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Williamson EJ,
    2. Walker AJ,
    3. Bhaskaran K,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Factors associated with COVID-19-related death using OpenSAFELY. Nature 584, 7821, 430–436.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Office for National Statistics
    (2020) Number of deaths in care homes notified to the Care Quality Commission, England (ONS, London).
  4. 4.↵
    1. Raleigh V
    (2020) Deaths from Covid-19 (coronavirus): how are they counted and what do they show? (The King’s Fund, London).
  5. 5.↵
    1. Holick MF
    (2019) BMJ Best Practice: Vitamin D deficiency, https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-gb/641/pdf/641/Vitamin%20D%20deficiency.pdf (accessed 3 Dec 2020).
  6. 6.↵
    1. Chakhtoura M,
    2. Napoli N,
    3. El Hajj Fuleihan G
    (2020) Commentary: myths and facts on vitamin D amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Metabolism 109, 154276.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
    (2014) Vitamin D supplement use in specific population groups (NICE, London).
  8. 8.↵
    1. Torjesen I
    (2020) Covid-19: Public health agencies review whether vitamin D supplements could reduce risk. BMJ 369, m2475.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Monlezun DJ,
    2. Bittner EA,
    3. Christopher KB,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Vitamin D status and acute respiratory infection: cross sectional results from the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001–2006. Nutrients 7, 3, 1933–1944.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Ilie PC,
    2. Stefanescu S,
    3. Smith L
    (2020) The role of vitamin D in the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 infection and mortality. Aging Clin Exp Res 32, 7, 1195–1198.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Khunti K,
    2. Singh AK,
    3. Pareek M,
    4. Hanif W
    (2020) Is ethnicity linked to incidence or outcomes of covid-19? BMJ 369, m1548.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Meltzer DO,
    2. Best TJ,
    3. Zhang H,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Association of vitamin D status and other clinical characteristics with COVID-19 test results. JAMA Network Open 3, 9, e2019722.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Jolliffe DA,
    2. Camargo CA Jr.,
    3. Sluyter JD,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials. medRxiv doi:10.1101/2020.07.14.20152728.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    1. Beard JA,
    2. Bearden A,
    3. Striker R
    (2011) Vitamin D and the anti-viral state. J Clin Virol 50, 3, 194–200.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Annweiler C,
    2. Hanotte B,
    3. de l’Eprevier CG,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Vitamin D and survival in COVID-19 patients: a quasi-experimental study. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 204, 105771.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Martineau AR,
    2. Jolliffe DA
    (2020) Trial of vitamin D to reduce risk and severity of COVID-19 and other acute respiratory infections (CORONAVIT), ClinicalTrials.gov.
  17. 17.↵
    1. British National Formulary
    (2020) Colecalciferol (NICE, London).
  18. 18.↵
    1. Department of Health and Social Care
    (2020) At-risk groups to receive free winter supply of vitamin D (GOV.UK, London).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 71 (702)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 71, Issue 702
January 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Vitamin D and COVID-19 in older age: evidence versus expectations
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Vitamin D and COVID-19 in older age: evidence versus expectations
Christopher E Clark, Jane Masoli, Fiona C Warren, James Soothill, John L Campbell
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (702): 10-11. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp21X714377

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Vitamin D and COVID-19 in older age: evidence versus expectations
Christopher E Clark, Jane Masoli, Fiona C Warren, James Soothill, John L Campbell
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (702): 10-11. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp21X714377
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • EXPECTATIONS AND MEDIA
    • EVIDENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INTERVENTIONS
    • WORKLOAD
    • RECOMMENDATIONS
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Advocating for patients through laboratory tests: what do GPs’ use of blood tests for suspected cancer tell us?
  • Diagnosis of prostate cancer in primary care: navigating updated clinical guidance
  • Socioeconomic deprivation and post-stroke care in the community
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242