Analgesics..
Antiandrogens..
Bromhexine
Budesonide
Cannabidiol
Colchicine
Conv. Plasma
Curcumin
Ensovibep
Famotidine
Favipiravir
Fluvoxamine
Hydroxychlor..
Iota-carragee..
Ivermectin
Lactoferrin
Lifestyle..
Melatonin
Metformin
Molnupiravir
Monoclonals..
Nigella Sativa
Nitazoxanide
Nitric Oxide
Paxlovid
Peg.. Lambda
Povidone-Iod..
Quercetin
Remdesivir
Vitamins..
Zinc

Other
Feedback
Home
Home   COVID-19 treatment studies for Vitamin D  COVID-19 treatment studies for Vitamin D  C19 studies: Vitamin D  Vitamin D   Select treatmentSelect treatmentTreatmentsTreatments
Melatonin Meta
Bromhexine Meta Metformin Meta
Budesonide Meta Molnupiravir Meta
Cannabidiol Meta
Colchicine Meta Nigella Sativa Meta
Conv. Plasma Meta Nitazoxanide Meta
Curcumin Meta Nitric Oxide Meta
Ensovibep Meta Paxlovid Meta
Famotidine Meta Peg.. Lambda Meta
Favipiravir Meta Povidone-Iod.. Meta
Fluvoxamine Meta Quercetin Meta
Hydroxychlor.. Meta Remdesivir Meta
Iota-carragee.. Meta
Ivermectin Meta Zinc Meta
Lactoferrin Meta

Other Treatments Global Adoption
All Studies   Meta Analysis   Recent: 
0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ Severe case 2% Improvement Relative Risk Hospitalization 0% Case 0% c19vitamind.com Patchen et al. Vitamin D for COVID-19 Sufficiency Favors vitamin D Favors control
Patchen, vitamin D sufficiency study: 2% lower severe cases [p=0.11], no change in hospitalization [p=1], and no change in cases [p=1] https://c19p.org/patchen
copied to clipboard
Genetically predicted serum vitamin D and COVID-19: a Mendelian randomization study
Patchen et al., BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health, doi:10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000255
1 Feb 2021    Source   PDF   Share   Tweet
UK Biobank Mendelian randomization study not finding significant differences in COVID-19 risk. The number of people predicted to have vitamin D deficiency does not appear to be provided.
Mendelian randomization studies compare the estimated effect of SNPs associated with variation in vitamin D levels on the health outcomes in large numbers of patients. For more background on Mendelian randomization studies and their limitations see [nature.com].
For reasons why Mendelian randomization may fail in this case, see [nutrition.bmj.com]. Authors suggest that it may come down to the use of 25(OH)D concentration in serum as a less than ideal proxy for vitamin D status of cells involved in the immune response. For most other purposes, it may not matter much that unbound (free) 25(OH)D is the better predictor of vitamin D deficiency and the resulting unfavourable outcomes. But for the MR analysis, the genetic instrument is strongly dominated by variation in the GC gene which modulates the concentration of vitamin D-binding protein (VDBP) in blood and thereby indirectly the concentrations of 25(OH)D and 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D. Thus, the common GC alleles rs4588A and rs7041T are both associated with much lower than average vitamin D concentrations. In contrast, directly measured unbound (free) vitamin D concentrations are minimally affected by these alleles, if at all.
[Grant] suggest that the primary reasons for Mendelien randomization failure include that the total SNP-induced variation in 25(OH)D has often been less than assay variance, and that genome-wide association studies of SNP effects have been made on the full range of 25(OH)D levels, while the data is non-linear with a significant percentage in the low and high plateaus of the outcome relationships.
risk of severe case, 2.0% lower, RR 0.98, p = 0.11, inverted to make RR<1 favor high D levels, odds ratio converted to relative risk, >50nmol/L, baseline risk approximated with overall risk.
risk of hospitalization, no change, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, inverted to make RR<1 favor high D levels, odds ratio converted to relative risk, >50nmol/L, baseline risk approximated with overall risk.
risk of case, no change, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, inverted to make RR<1 favor high D levels, odds ratio converted to relative risk, >50nmol/L, baseline risk approximated with overall risk.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates
Patchen et al., 1 Feb 2021, retrospective, United Kingdom, peer-reviewed, 5 authors.
All Studies   Meta Analysis   Submit Updates or Corrections
This PaperVitamin DAll
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. Vaccines and treatments are complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. FLCCC and WCH provide treatment protocols.
  or use drag and drop   
Submit