COVID-19 studies:  C19 studies: C19:  IvermectinIVM Vitamin DV.D PXPX FLVFLV PVP-IPI BUBU BHBH BLBL CICI HC QHC Q NZNZ COCO More..
Vitamin D study #73 of 96
2/1 Analysis of outcomes based on serum levels
Patchen et al., BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health, doi:10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000255 (Peer Reviewed)
Genetically predicted serum vitamin D and COVID-19: a Mendelian randomization study
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.
For some background on Mendelian randomization studies and their limitations see [1].
For reasons why Mendelian randomization may fail in this case, see [2]. Authors suggest that it may come down to the use of 25-OHD 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-OHD 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-OHD 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.

Patchen et al., 2/1/2021, retrospective, United Kingdom, Europe, peer-reviewed, 5 authors.
risk of COVID-19 severe case, 2.0% lower, RR 0.98, p = 0.11, 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, odds ratio converted to relative risk, >50nmol/L, baseline risk approximated with overall risk.
risk of COVID-19 case, no change, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, odds ratio converted to relative risk, >50nmol/L, baseline risk approximated with overall risk.

Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. For an individual study the most serious outcome may have a smaller number of events and lower statistical signficance, however this provides the strongest evidence for the most serious outcomes when combining the results of many trials.
Details of all 96 studies
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. Vaccines and treatments are both extremely valuable and complementary; multiple approaches are required to protect all people from all existing 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. Treatment protocols for physicians are available from the FLCCC.
  or use drag and drop to submit images   
Submit