Background

Questioninfo icon

Does Vitamin D reduce the severity of COVID-19 outcomes?

19 Oct, 2020

Answerinfo icon

Vitamin D reduces the odds for severe COVID-19 by a factor of around 5.

(49% probability)

Backgroundinfo icon

There is a heated debate regarding the effectiveness of vitamin D in improving COVID-19 outcomes. While numerous studies show a correlation, many claim it is due to confounding factors. A few controlled trials showed a strong effect, but the most notable one, conducted in Córdoba, Spain, had significant flaws that prevented it from being widely accepted.

More studies are underway, and within a year or so we will likely get a more certain answer, but a probabilistic analysis of currently available information can reach a useful conclusion faster, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

Additionally, the conclusion below is included in the Rootclaim $100,000 challenge.

Note: this is a simplified analysis; the full version was published in September 2020 on the Rootclaim blog.

Hypotheses Consideredinfo icon

Calculated Resultsinfo icon

Calculated Resultsinfo icon

1

49%
5-fold:

Vitamin D reduces the odds for severe COVID-19 by a factor of around 5.

49%

2

29%
20-fold:

Vitamin D reduces the odds for severe COVID-19 by a factor of around 20.

29%

3

15%
No Effect:

Vitamin D has no effect on COVID-19 outcomes.

15%

4

5%
2-fold:

Vitamin D reduces the odds for severe COVID-19 by a factor of around 2.

5%

5

2.2%
Damage:

Vitamin D worsens COVID-19 outcomes.

2.2%

Starting Pointinfo icon

Initial Probabilities

Name
Initial Likelihoods
info icon
Damage
10%
No Effect
67%
2-fold
15%
5-fold
5%
20-fold
3%

As a baseline, few drugs are effective for any specific disease. However, there are multiple studies showing a correlation between vitamin D and COVID-19, and several proposed mechanisms of actions. On the flip side, there is the risk that vitamin D could actually exacerbate COVID-19 by increasing the expression of ACE2.

We will represent these facts with the following prior probabilities of using a high-dosage, short term, vitamin D treatment for Covid 19:

  • Damage – 10%

  • Nothing – 67%

  • 2-fold improvement – 15%

  • 5-fold improvement – 5%

  • 20-fold improvement – 3%

Name
Initial Likelihoods
info icon
Damage
10%
No Effect
67%
2-fold
15%
5-fold
5%
20-fold
3%

Evidenceinfo icon

Effectinfo icon

Reduced admittance to ICU

Name

Effectinfo icon

Updated Likelihoods

Damage
÷2000000
2.2%
No Effect
÷6667
15%
2-fold
÷4
5%
5-fold
×125
49%
20-fold
×83
29%

A randomized controlled study of 76 patients found significant improvements in patients treated with vitamin D relative to patients not treated with vitamin D. Specifically, 13 of 26 patients in the control group were admitted to the ICU, while only 1 of the 50 patients treated with vitamin D were admitted to the ICU.

Name

Effectinfo icon

Updated Likelihoods

Damage
÷2000000
2.2%
No Effect
÷6667
15%
2-fold
÷4
5%
5-fold
×125
49%
20-fold
×83
29%

Discussioninfo icon

userIcon
user icon
LolCox
Dec 25, 2022 at 2:58 AM
The issue I have with this is that the point of taking vitamin D for COVID-19 is that you're supposed to be taking it BEFORE you're exposed to the virus. You want high levels in the body so that when you do get exposed to the virus, you fight it off very effectively. Also, there's a study from Bangledesh that shows Vitamin D + C + zinc combined together result in reduced sickness and hospitalization rates by a massive amount, but it's not randomized: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/23/5029 It's also going to depend on how much you're taking.
logo icon
Rootclaim
Dec 26, 2022 at 9:21 AM
Thank you for pointing this trial out to us. We agree, and we consider that there is a high likelihood that vitamin D is a strong prophylactic treatment, it's likely that after contracting the virus its usage is significantly reduced.
user icon
Simon
Apr 14, 2022 at 8:45 PM
How does this new study affect the probabilites? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.03.22.22271707v1
user icon
LolCox
Dec 25, 2022 at 3:04 AM
This study is absolute garbage actually. There was no actual placebo, and about half of the "no treatment" group (which was supposed to be placebo) took vitamin D anyway. Some of the "no treatment" group were switched into the treatment group part-way through the study. The amount of vitamin D given was probably also inadequate. Further, people were getting vaxxed in the middle of the study. These methodological errors and others force me to reject this paper altogether.
user avatar
Dan Warren
Jul 28, 2021 at 2:40 PM
It seems ridiculous that the 76 participant preliminary study with obvious methodological problems has such a massive impact on the probabilities. Mauro posted a paper contradicting this claim to this thread more than a month ago, an analysis using a much larger data set than the one that flipped these probabilities. I'm inclined to suggest that rootclaim owes Butler-Laporte , Nakanishi et al $100K for debunking this.
logo icon
Rootclaim
Oct 7, 2021 at 11:05 AM
As we responded to Mauro, the Mendelian randomization studies are not too useful in this context, since genetics account for only a small portion of vitamin D blood level, which is almost exclusively dictated by environmental factors. As you say, the study we input into our analysis has certain limiting factors. However, to reduce the uncertainty that these factors introduce, we built a probabilistic model which took into account these limitations. This means we are using numbers that are more conservative than the results of the trial and still arriving at a high probability that vitamin D significantly improves COVID-19 outcomes.
user avatar
Mauro Orsini
Jun 23, 2021 at 3:06 PM
logo icon
Rootclaim
Oct 7, 2021 at 11:01 AM
The Mendelian randomization studies are not too useful in this context, since genetics account for only a small portion of vitamin D blood level, which is almost exclusively dictated by environmental factors.
user icon
claim_guest_25
Jun 15, 2021 at 7:25 AM
Is any research about N-COV-1 (SARS) and Vitamin D relevant? I heard that in Canada, SARS front-line workers were advised to increase intake of vitamin D; I don't know what that was based on. Apologies if this is old news. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3624188/ 72. Shaheen SO, Jameson KA, Robinson SM, Boucher BJ, Syddall HE, Sayer AA, Cooper C, Holloway JW, Dennison EM. 2011. Relationship of vitamin D status to adult lung function and COPD. Thorax 66:692–698 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 73. Sundar IK, Hwang JW, Wu S, Sun J, Rahman I. 2011. Deletion of vitamin D receptor leads to premature emphysema/COPD by increased matrix metalloproteinases and lymphoid aggregates formation. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 406:127–133 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
logo icon
Rootclaim
Oct 7, 2021 at 11:57 AM
Thanks for sharing, definitely interesting. However, there is already enough evidence about SARS-2 and Vitamin D that we don’t feel that SARS-1 adds enough information.