02/20/2021
Sometimes in medicine you feel like you’re beating a dead horse, but not in the way you might think.
Many would like to abandon the idea that vitamin D improves COVID-19 outcomes because of a study that was just released on JAMA noting that a “single dose of 200 000 IU vitamin D3, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality, admission to ICU, nor mechanical ventilation.” Ok, let’s forget about vitamin D then; we can stop beating a dead horse and forget about the other results we observed earlier.
But, wait, why in the world did they use a single bolus dose of 200 000 IU when research has shown that bolus dosing is not as effective as daily or weekly dosing? (I mentioned this in a previous post). Daily dosing may be better than weekly dosing, and weekly dosing may be better than monthly dosing. They used a bolus dose likely to increase ease of use and to use a simple one-time intervention, but at the detriment of us being able to properly assess the results.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think vitamin D is the magic bullet that some tout it to be, nothing really ever is, but we’re doing ourselves a disservice when we do new studies that don’t reflect our knowledge of what we already understand about vitamin D supplementation, which is that bolus dosing has not been shown to have the same effect as other forms of dosing.
They go on to explain that the vitamin D levels of those who supplemented did increase significantly compared to those in the placebo group but final outcomes were not changed. In actuality, we don’t know if it’s the corrected vitamin D levels that may improve outcomes or the possible anti-inflammatory and pleiotropic (outside system) effects of vitamin D supplementation irrespective of final vitamin D levels...
Full post in bio.