4.7 Article

Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on the Incidence of Diabetes Mellitus

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Volume 105, Issue 8, Pages 2857-2868

Publisher

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa335

Keywords

vitamin D; diabetes mellitus; body mass index; prediabetes; meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context: The effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains controversial because most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been small or have reported low doses of vitamin D. Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis of RCTs testing vitamin D supplementation in the prevention of T2DM. Data Sources: Database search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed by 2 reviewers from inception through September 15, 2019. Study Selection: We included RCTs that reported the effect of vitamin D supplementation for at least 1 year on T2DM prevention. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted the data. The risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. Primary outcome of the meta-analysis was the incidence of T2DM. Data Synthesis: Nine RCTs were included (43 559 participants). The mean age (standard deviation) was 63.5 (6.7) years. The RR for vitamin D compared with placebo was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.90-1.03); P = 0.30. In trials testing moderate to high doses of supplementation (>= 1000 IU/day), all conducted among participants with prediabetes, the RR for vitamin D compared with placebo was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.79-0.99). In contrast, the trials testing lower doses, which were conducted in general population samples, showed no risk reduction (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.10; P, interaction by dose = 0.04). Conclusion: In patients with prediabetes, vitamin D supplementation at moderate to high doses (>= 1000 IU/day), significantly reduced the incidence risk of T2DM, compared with placebo.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available