Digestery
Everyday supplements › Vitamin D and Infections › Studies

Randomized trial · measured other health measures

Trial in 254 older adults with COVID-19: more vitamin D, fewer 14-day deaths

Annweiler and colleagues · PLoS medicine · 2022

Original title: High-dose versus standard-dose vitamin D supplementation in older adults with COVID-19 (COVIT-TRIAL): A multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

Points to benefit

14-day deaths: 8 (6%) of 127 with high dose vs 14 (11%) of 127 with standard dose (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.99, P = 0.049). At 28 days: 19 (15%) vs 21 (17%), not clearly different (P = 0.29).

The study at a glance

Type of study
Randomized trial
Who or what was studied
254 people · Adults aged 65 and older, median age 88, in hospital or nursing homes with new COVID-19 and a risk factor
What was tested
One high dose of vitamin D3 (400,000 IU) vs one standard dose (50,000 IU), given within 72 hours of diagnosis
What it measured
Other health or performance measures
Trial registration
NCT04344041
Who has a stake
Company stake
Mylan supplied the vitamin D3 used, and the lead author sometimes consults for Mylan.
Journal
PLoS medicine, 2022
Source
PubMed record 35639792. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • ✓Randomized: people were put into groups by chance, so the groups start out alike.
  • •Medium size: 254 people.
  • •Measured other health measures, not colds, flu and other respiratory infections itself.
  • –Company stake: Mylan supplied the vitamin D3 used, and the lead author sometimes consults for Mylan.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

Each dot is one on-topic paper on this question. Steps near the top answer the question more directly.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: colds, flu and chest infections

    10

    2 benefit, 8 no difference

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    5

    1 benefit, 1 mixed, 2 no difference, 1 harm

    ↑ This study is the ringed dot

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    1

    1 no difference

  4. Population studies

    1

    1 no difference

  5. Blood levels and genes

    4

    3 benefit, 1 no difference

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Does vitamin D prevent colds and infections?”

Not clearly; any effect looks small.

Confidence: low. Based on 33 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer

Of the other 4 papers on the same step: 1 mixed, 2 no difference, 1 harm. This one found benefit.

Other papers on the same step

See all 33 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The two reads agreed on every checked field. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.