Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36145196›Full record

Trial reportNutrients2022

Vitamin D Supplementation Does Not Influence SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Efficacy or Immunogenicity: Sub-Studies Nested within the CORONAVIT Randomised Controlled Trial.

David A Jolliffe, Giulia Vivaldi, Emma S Chambers, Weigang Cai, Wenhao Li, Sian E Faustini, Joseph M Gibbons, Corinna Pade, Anna K Coussens, Alex G Richter and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Health Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation: Lessons Learned From Randomized Controlled Trials and Mendelian Randomization Studies.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

David A JolliffeWolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AB, UK.
Giulia VivaldiWolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AB, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0816-9276
Emma S ChambersBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0990-8835
Weigang CaiBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AT, UK.
Wenhao LiBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0717-9069
Sian E FaustiniInstitute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9300-5569
Joseph M GibbonsBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7238-2381
Corinna PadeBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0626-2346
Anna K CoussensInfectious Diseases and Immune Defence Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7086-2621
Alex G RichterInstitute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Áine McKnightBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AT, UK.
Adrian R MartineauWolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AB, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5387-1721
Queen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vitamin D deficiency has been reported to associate with the impaired development of antigen-specific responses following vaccination. We aimed to determine whether vitamin D supplements might boost the immunogenicity and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination by conducting three sub-studies nested within the CORONAVIT randomised controlled trial, which investigated the effects of offering vitamin D supplements at a dose of 800 IU/day or 3200 IU/day vs. no offer on risk of acute respiratory infections in UK adults with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations <75 nmol/L. Sub-study 1 (n = 2808) investigated the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection following two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Sub-study 2 (n = 1853) investigated the effects of vitamin D supplementation on titres of combined IgG, IgA and IgM (IgGAM) anti-Spike antibodies in eluates of dried blood spots collected after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Sub-study 3 (n = 100) investigated the effects of vitamin D supplementation on neutralising antibody and cellular responses in venous blood samples collected after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. In total, 1945/2808 (69.3%) sub-study 1 participants received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford−AstraZeneca); the remainder received two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer). Mean follow-up 25(OH)D concentrations were significantly elevated in the 800 IU/day vs. no-offer group (82.5 vs. 53.6 nmol/L; mean difference 28.8 nmol/L, 95% CI 22.8−34.8) and in the 3200 IU/day vs. no offer group (105.4 vs. 53.6 nmol/L; mean difference 51.7 nmol/L, 45.1−58.4). Vitamin D supplementation did not influence the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated participants (800 IU/day vs. no offer: adjusted hazard ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.84; 3200 IU/day vs. no offer: 1.17, 0.81 to 1.70). Neither did it influence IgGAM anti-Spike titres, neutralising antibody titres or IFN-γ concentrations in the supernatants of S peptide-stimulated whole blood. In conclusion, vitamin D replacement at a dose of 800 or 3200 IU/day effectively elevated 25(OH)D concentrations, but it did not influence the protective efficacy or immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination when given to adults who had a sub-optimal vitamin D status at baseline.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAdultAntibodies, NeutralizingBNT162 VaccineChAdOx1 nCoV-19Dietary SupplementsHumansImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MSARS-CoV-2Vaccine EfficacyVitamin DVitaminsAntibodies, NeutralizingBNT162 VaccineChAdOx1 nCoV-19COVID-19 VaccinesImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MVitamin DVitaminsantibodyBNT162b2 Pfizerbreakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infectionChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Oxford–AstraZenecainterferon gammarandomised controlled trialvitamin D

Identifiers

PMID36145196
PMCPMC9506404
OpenAlexW4296365563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.