Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.

gyn
Main menu
MD ObGyn Main Menu
Explore menu
MD ObGyn Explore Menu
Proclivity ID
18848001
Unpublish
Negative Keywords Excluded Elements
div[contains(@class, 'view-clinical-edge-must-reads')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
Altmetric
Click for Credit Button Label
Click For Credit
DSM Affiliated
Display in offset block
Enable Disqus
Display Author and Disclosure Link
Publication Type
Clinical
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Disable Sticky Ads
Disable Ad Block Mitigation
Featured Buckets Admin
Show Ads on this Publication's Homepage
Consolidated Pub
Show Article Page Numbers on TOC
Expire Announcement Bar
Wed, 12/18/2024 - 09:36
Use larger logo size
On
publication_blueconic_enabled
Off
Show More Destinations Menu
Forensiq API riskScore
85
Disable Adhesion on Publication
Off
Restore Menu Label on Mobile Navigation
Disable Facebook Pixel from Publication
Exclude this publication from publication selection on articles and quiz
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Challenge Center
Disable Inline Native ads
survey writer start date
Wed, 12/18/2024 - 09:36

Major COVID-19 case growth expected in coming weeks

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 12/13/2021 - 16:22

Most of the United States will see significant growth in COVID-19 cases during the next four weeks, according to the latest forecasting models by the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Large metropolitan areas, especially those in the Northeast, are already seeing a major increase in cases following Thanksgiving, and that trend is expected to continue.

“Why? Simply stated, the large amount of Thanksgiving travel and gatherings undermined the nation’s pandemic footing and has elevated disease burden in areas of the country that were fortunate to have lower case rates before the holidays,” the forecasters wrote.

Case numbers in New York City are expected to double throughout December, the forecasters said. Similar growth could happen across Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

Overall, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising across the United States but remain below levels seen during the summer and last winter’s surges, according to the New York Times. The increase is still being driven by the Delta variant, though it remains unclear how the Omicron variant, which has been detected in 27 states, could affect the trends in the coming weeks.

During the past week, the United States has reported an average of more than 120,000 new cases each day, the newspaper reported, which is an increase of 38% from two weeks ago.

The daily average of COVID-19 hospitalizations is around 64,000, which marks an increase of 22% from two weeks ago. More than 1,300 deaths are being reported each day, which is up 26%.

Numerous states are reporting double the cases from two weeks ago, stretching across the country from states in the Northeast such as Connecticut and Rhode Island to southern states such as North Carolina and Texas and western states such as California.

The Great Lakes region and the Northeast are seeing some of the most severe increases, the newspaper reported. New Hampshire leads the United States in recent cases per capita, and Maine has reported more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day period during the pandemic.

Michigan has the country’s highest hospitalization rate, and federal medical teams have been sent to the state to help with the surge in patients, according to The Detroit News. Michigan’s top public health officials described the surge as a “critical” and “deeply concerning” situation on Dec. 10, and they requested 200 more ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile.

Indiana, Maine, and New York have also requested aid from the National Guard, according to USA Today. Health officials in those states urged residents to get vaccines or booster shots and wear masks in indoor public settings.

The Omicron variant can evade some vaccine protection, but booster shots can increase efficacy and offer more coverage, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Dec. 12.

“If you want to be optimally protected, absolutely get a booster,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

In addition, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced a statewide mask mandate, which will take effect Dec. 13. Masks will be required in all indoor public spaces and businesses, unless the location implements a vaccine requirement instead, the news outlet reported.

 

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Most of the United States will see significant growth in COVID-19 cases during the next four weeks, according to the latest forecasting models by the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Large metropolitan areas, especially those in the Northeast, are already seeing a major increase in cases following Thanksgiving, and that trend is expected to continue.

“Why? Simply stated, the large amount of Thanksgiving travel and gatherings undermined the nation’s pandemic footing and has elevated disease burden in areas of the country that were fortunate to have lower case rates before the holidays,” the forecasters wrote.

Case numbers in New York City are expected to double throughout December, the forecasters said. Similar growth could happen across Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

Overall, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising across the United States but remain below levels seen during the summer and last winter’s surges, according to the New York Times. The increase is still being driven by the Delta variant, though it remains unclear how the Omicron variant, which has been detected in 27 states, could affect the trends in the coming weeks.

During the past week, the United States has reported an average of more than 120,000 new cases each day, the newspaper reported, which is an increase of 38% from two weeks ago.

The daily average of COVID-19 hospitalizations is around 64,000, which marks an increase of 22% from two weeks ago. More than 1,300 deaths are being reported each day, which is up 26%.

Numerous states are reporting double the cases from two weeks ago, stretching across the country from states in the Northeast such as Connecticut and Rhode Island to southern states such as North Carolina and Texas and western states such as California.

The Great Lakes region and the Northeast are seeing some of the most severe increases, the newspaper reported. New Hampshire leads the United States in recent cases per capita, and Maine has reported more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day period during the pandemic.

Michigan has the country’s highest hospitalization rate, and federal medical teams have been sent to the state to help with the surge in patients, according to The Detroit News. Michigan’s top public health officials described the surge as a “critical” and “deeply concerning” situation on Dec. 10, and they requested 200 more ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile.

Indiana, Maine, and New York have also requested aid from the National Guard, according to USA Today. Health officials in those states urged residents to get vaccines or booster shots and wear masks in indoor public settings.

The Omicron variant can evade some vaccine protection, but booster shots can increase efficacy and offer more coverage, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Dec. 12.

“If you want to be optimally protected, absolutely get a booster,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

In addition, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced a statewide mask mandate, which will take effect Dec. 13. Masks will be required in all indoor public spaces and businesses, unless the location implements a vaccine requirement instead, the news outlet reported.

 

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Most of the United States will see significant growth in COVID-19 cases during the next four weeks, according to the latest forecasting models by the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Large metropolitan areas, especially those in the Northeast, are already seeing a major increase in cases following Thanksgiving, and that trend is expected to continue.

“Why? Simply stated, the large amount of Thanksgiving travel and gatherings undermined the nation’s pandemic footing and has elevated disease burden in areas of the country that were fortunate to have lower case rates before the holidays,” the forecasters wrote.

Case numbers in New York City are expected to double throughout December, the forecasters said. Similar growth could happen across Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

Overall, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising across the United States but remain below levels seen during the summer and last winter’s surges, according to the New York Times. The increase is still being driven by the Delta variant, though it remains unclear how the Omicron variant, which has been detected in 27 states, could affect the trends in the coming weeks.

During the past week, the United States has reported an average of more than 120,000 new cases each day, the newspaper reported, which is an increase of 38% from two weeks ago.

The daily average of COVID-19 hospitalizations is around 64,000, which marks an increase of 22% from two weeks ago. More than 1,300 deaths are being reported each day, which is up 26%.

Numerous states are reporting double the cases from two weeks ago, stretching across the country from states in the Northeast such as Connecticut and Rhode Island to southern states such as North Carolina and Texas and western states such as California.

The Great Lakes region and the Northeast are seeing some of the most severe increases, the newspaper reported. New Hampshire leads the United States in recent cases per capita, and Maine has reported more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day period during the pandemic.

Michigan has the country’s highest hospitalization rate, and federal medical teams have been sent to the state to help with the surge in patients, according to The Detroit News. Michigan’s top public health officials described the surge as a “critical” and “deeply concerning” situation on Dec. 10, and they requested 200 more ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile.

Indiana, Maine, and New York have also requested aid from the National Guard, according to USA Today. Health officials in those states urged residents to get vaccines or booster shots and wear masks in indoor public settings.

The Omicron variant can evade some vaccine protection, but booster shots can increase efficacy and offer more coverage, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Dec. 12.

“If you want to be optimally protected, absolutely get a booster,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

In addition, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced a statewide mask mandate, which will take effect Dec. 13. Masks will be required in all indoor public spaces and businesses, unless the location implements a vaccine requirement instead, the news outlet reported.

 

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Antibiotic use associated with triple-negative breast cancer mortality

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/04/2023 - 16:58

A small study suggests the frequent use of antibiotics among women with triple-negative breast cancer, may have an impact on overall and breast cancer–specific mortality.

The study was recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium by Julia D. Ransohoff, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

Gut-associated lymphoid tissues are the largest component of the immune system. They influence both local and systemic immune responses, but the use of antimicrobials can decrease circulating and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes that effect the immune repertoire and in turn, the survival of women with triple-negative breast cancer.

Dr. Ransohoff and colleagues hypothesized that increasing antimicrobial exposure in the presence of time-varying absolute lymphocyte counts may lead to higher overall and breast cancer–specific mortality. Their analysis is based on data from the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry and electronic medical records from Stanford University and Sutter Health. It included 772 women who were treated for triple-negative breast cancer between 2000 and 2014. The women were followed for an average of 104 months.

In an earlier analysis of this same group, Dr. Ransohoff found that higher minimum absolute lymphocyte counts were associated with lower overall mortality (hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.35) and breast cancer mortality (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.11-0.34) The association between higher peripheral lymphocyte counts and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes was significant.

In the analysis of relationships between antibiotic use and mortality, 85% of women (n = 654) were prescribed antibiotics after having been diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer. The death rate among patients who were prescribed antibiotics was 23% (153/654), compared with 20% (24/118) among the patients who were not treated with antibiotics (which accounts for 15% of the entire group).

For total antibiotic exposure, the HR for overall mortality was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.03-1.09; P < .001) and 1.07 for breast cancer–specific mortality (95% CI, 1.04-1.10; P < .001). For unique antibiotic exposure (not counting repeat prescriptions of the same antibiotic), the HR for overall mortality was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.12-1.22; P < .001) and 1.18 for breast cancer–specific mortality (95% CI, 1.12-1.24; P < .001). 

“These were all statistically significant associations derived from a statistical model that takes into account baseline patient characteristics, so the reported hazard ratios, to the best of our ability, represent the risk of death associated with antibiotic use adjusted for other baseline covariates. We’ve attempted to account for differences at baseline that may indicate patients are sicker, and so the reported risk represents mortality related with antibiotic exposure,” Dr. Ransohoff said.

Elucidating the role of the microbiome in mediating absolute lymphocyte counts and immune response may inform interventions to reduce triple-negative mortality, she said.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

A small study suggests the frequent use of antibiotics among women with triple-negative breast cancer, may have an impact on overall and breast cancer–specific mortality.

The study was recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium by Julia D. Ransohoff, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

Gut-associated lymphoid tissues are the largest component of the immune system. They influence both local and systemic immune responses, but the use of antimicrobials can decrease circulating and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes that effect the immune repertoire and in turn, the survival of women with triple-negative breast cancer.

Dr. Ransohoff and colleagues hypothesized that increasing antimicrobial exposure in the presence of time-varying absolute lymphocyte counts may lead to higher overall and breast cancer–specific mortality. Their analysis is based on data from the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry and electronic medical records from Stanford University and Sutter Health. It included 772 women who were treated for triple-negative breast cancer between 2000 and 2014. The women were followed for an average of 104 months.

In an earlier analysis of this same group, Dr. Ransohoff found that higher minimum absolute lymphocyte counts were associated with lower overall mortality (hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.35) and breast cancer mortality (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.11-0.34) The association between higher peripheral lymphocyte counts and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes was significant.

In the analysis of relationships between antibiotic use and mortality, 85% of women (n = 654) were prescribed antibiotics after having been diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer. The death rate among patients who were prescribed antibiotics was 23% (153/654), compared with 20% (24/118) among the patients who were not treated with antibiotics (which accounts for 15% of the entire group).

For total antibiotic exposure, the HR for overall mortality was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.03-1.09; P < .001) and 1.07 for breast cancer–specific mortality (95% CI, 1.04-1.10; P < .001). For unique antibiotic exposure (not counting repeat prescriptions of the same antibiotic), the HR for overall mortality was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.12-1.22; P < .001) and 1.18 for breast cancer–specific mortality (95% CI, 1.12-1.24; P < .001). 

“These were all statistically significant associations derived from a statistical model that takes into account baseline patient characteristics, so the reported hazard ratios, to the best of our ability, represent the risk of death associated with antibiotic use adjusted for other baseline covariates. We’ve attempted to account for differences at baseline that may indicate patients are sicker, and so the reported risk represents mortality related with antibiotic exposure,” Dr. Ransohoff said.

Elucidating the role of the microbiome in mediating absolute lymphocyte counts and immune response may inform interventions to reduce triple-negative mortality, she said.

A small study suggests the frequent use of antibiotics among women with triple-negative breast cancer, may have an impact on overall and breast cancer–specific mortality.

The study was recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium by Julia D. Ransohoff, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

Gut-associated lymphoid tissues are the largest component of the immune system. They influence both local and systemic immune responses, but the use of antimicrobials can decrease circulating and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes that effect the immune repertoire and in turn, the survival of women with triple-negative breast cancer.

Dr. Ransohoff and colleagues hypothesized that increasing antimicrobial exposure in the presence of time-varying absolute lymphocyte counts may lead to higher overall and breast cancer–specific mortality. Their analysis is based on data from the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry and electronic medical records from Stanford University and Sutter Health. It included 772 women who were treated for triple-negative breast cancer between 2000 and 2014. The women were followed for an average of 104 months.

In an earlier analysis of this same group, Dr. Ransohoff found that higher minimum absolute lymphocyte counts were associated with lower overall mortality (hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.35) and breast cancer mortality (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.11-0.34) The association between higher peripheral lymphocyte counts and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes was significant.

In the analysis of relationships between antibiotic use and mortality, 85% of women (n = 654) were prescribed antibiotics after having been diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer. The death rate among patients who were prescribed antibiotics was 23% (153/654), compared with 20% (24/118) among the patients who were not treated with antibiotics (which accounts for 15% of the entire group).

For total antibiotic exposure, the HR for overall mortality was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.03-1.09; P < .001) and 1.07 for breast cancer–specific mortality (95% CI, 1.04-1.10; P < .001). For unique antibiotic exposure (not counting repeat prescriptions of the same antibiotic), the HR for overall mortality was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.12-1.22; P < .001) and 1.18 for breast cancer–specific mortality (95% CI, 1.12-1.24; P < .001). 

“These were all statistically significant associations derived from a statistical model that takes into account baseline patient characteristics, so the reported hazard ratios, to the best of our ability, represent the risk of death associated with antibiotic use adjusted for other baseline covariates. We’ve attempted to account for differences at baseline that may indicate patients are sicker, and so the reported risk represents mortality related with antibiotic exposure,” Dr. Ransohoff said.

Elucidating the role of the microbiome in mediating absolute lymphocyte counts and immune response may inform interventions to reduce triple-negative mortality, she said.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT SABCS 2021

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Omega-3 supplements may impact breast cancer risk

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/04/2023 - 16:58

Supplementation with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) leads to gut microbial changes that may protect against inflammation, according to a new analysis of obese and overweight, postmenopausal women who participated in a weight loss trial.

The study was presented by Katherine Cook, PhD, during a poster session at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. Dr. Cook is a researcher at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

Obesity increases risk of breast cancer, but it also alters the composition of the gut microbiome. Obesity is associated with a greater frequency of Firmicute bacteria phyla, compared with Bacteroidetes phyla, while abnormally low ratios are associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

In mice, the researchers previously showed that diet can lead to changes in the microbiome of both the gut and the breast. They conducted fecal transplants between mice who were fed normal or high-fat diets (HFD), and then used a chemical carcinogenesis model to investigate the impact on tumor outcomes. They observed changes in the microbiota populations in both the gut and the mammary glands when mice fed a normal diet received fecal transplants from HFD mice. On the other hand, when HFD mice received fecal transplants from mice with normal diets, the transplants countered the increase in serum lipopolysaccharide levels associated with HFD. In vitro models showed that microbiota from HFD mice also altered the epithelial permeability of breast tissue, and infection of breast cancer cells with HFD microbiota led to greater proliferation.

The researchers also examined breast cancer tissue from women who received omega-3 PUFA supplements or placebo before undergoing primary tumor resection, and found that there were differences in the proportional abundance of specific microbes between tumor and adjacent normal tissue, with the former having excess of Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcus. The finding suggests that these bacteria may grow better in a tumor microenvironment, and could play a role in breast cancer cell signaling. The supplements altered the microbiota of both normal and breast cancer tissue.

In the study presented at SABCS, the researchers analyzed fecal samples from 34 obese and overweight postmenopausal women involved in a weight-loss trial, who received 3.25 g/day of omega-3 PUFA supplements or placebo combined with calorie restriction and exercise. They performed metagenomic sequencing from the fecal samples at baseline and 6 months to determine microbiome populations.

Women who experienced weight loss, with or without omega-3 PUFA supplementation, had a decline in the abundance of Firmicutes phyla – a group linked to inflammation risk – as a percentage of overall bacterial phyla. The researchers found a similar trend among women who received omega-3 PUFA, regardless of how much weight they lost. At the species level, those who received supplements had higher proportional abundance of Phocaeicola massiliensis and reduced proportions of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, R. lactaris, Blautia obeum, and Dorea formicigenerans (P < .05).

Weight loss combined with supplementation also seemed to affect gut microbiota, with subjects who lost more than 10% of their body weight and received omega-3 PUFA supplements having elevated Bacteriodetes and reduced Firmicutes, compared with all other groups (P < .05).

At 6 months, the researchers grouped women by mean body fat composition, and found both positive and negative correlations among different bacterial species. Finally, the researchers looked at serum levels of the inflammatory cytokines interleukin-6, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), and tumor necrosis factor–alpha at 6 months. Women with elevated levels of at least two cytokines had higher levels of two species of mucin-degrading bacteria. Levels of MCP-1 alone also correlated with greater proportions of mucin-degrading bacteria (P < .05).

The authors concluded that increasing omega-3 PUFA uptake to about 2% of total daily calorie intake could push the gut microbiome in a direction that improves intestinal permeability parameters and reduces chronic inflammation. These changes could lead to a reduction in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer.

The study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

Supplementation with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) leads to gut microbial changes that may protect against inflammation, according to a new analysis of obese and overweight, postmenopausal women who participated in a weight loss trial.

The study was presented by Katherine Cook, PhD, during a poster session at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. Dr. Cook is a researcher at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

Obesity increases risk of breast cancer, but it also alters the composition of the gut microbiome. Obesity is associated with a greater frequency of Firmicute bacteria phyla, compared with Bacteroidetes phyla, while abnormally low ratios are associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

In mice, the researchers previously showed that diet can lead to changes in the microbiome of both the gut and the breast. They conducted fecal transplants between mice who were fed normal or high-fat diets (HFD), and then used a chemical carcinogenesis model to investigate the impact on tumor outcomes. They observed changes in the microbiota populations in both the gut and the mammary glands when mice fed a normal diet received fecal transplants from HFD mice. On the other hand, when HFD mice received fecal transplants from mice with normal diets, the transplants countered the increase in serum lipopolysaccharide levels associated with HFD. In vitro models showed that microbiota from HFD mice also altered the epithelial permeability of breast tissue, and infection of breast cancer cells with HFD microbiota led to greater proliferation.

The researchers also examined breast cancer tissue from women who received omega-3 PUFA supplements or placebo before undergoing primary tumor resection, and found that there were differences in the proportional abundance of specific microbes between tumor and adjacent normal tissue, with the former having excess of Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcus. The finding suggests that these bacteria may grow better in a tumor microenvironment, and could play a role in breast cancer cell signaling. The supplements altered the microbiota of both normal and breast cancer tissue.

In the study presented at SABCS, the researchers analyzed fecal samples from 34 obese and overweight postmenopausal women involved in a weight-loss trial, who received 3.25 g/day of omega-3 PUFA supplements or placebo combined with calorie restriction and exercise. They performed metagenomic sequencing from the fecal samples at baseline and 6 months to determine microbiome populations.

Women who experienced weight loss, with or without omega-3 PUFA supplementation, had a decline in the abundance of Firmicutes phyla – a group linked to inflammation risk – as a percentage of overall bacterial phyla. The researchers found a similar trend among women who received omega-3 PUFA, regardless of how much weight they lost. At the species level, those who received supplements had higher proportional abundance of Phocaeicola massiliensis and reduced proportions of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, R. lactaris, Blautia obeum, and Dorea formicigenerans (P < .05).

Weight loss combined with supplementation also seemed to affect gut microbiota, with subjects who lost more than 10% of their body weight and received omega-3 PUFA supplements having elevated Bacteriodetes and reduced Firmicutes, compared with all other groups (P < .05).

At 6 months, the researchers grouped women by mean body fat composition, and found both positive and negative correlations among different bacterial species. Finally, the researchers looked at serum levels of the inflammatory cytokines interleukin-6, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), and tumor necrosis factor–alpha at 6 months. Women with elevated levels of at least two cytokines had higher levels of two species of mucin-degrading bacteria. Levels of MCP-1 alone also correlated with greater proportions of mucin-degrading bacteria (P < .05).

The authors concluded that increasing omega-3 PUFA uptake to about 2% of total daily calorie intake could push the gut microbiome in a direction that improves intestinal permeability parameters and reduces chronic inflammation. These changes could lead to a reduction in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer.

The study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

Supplementation with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) leads to gut microbial changes that may protect against inflammation, according to a new analysis of obese and overweight, postmenopausal women who participated in a weight loss trial.

The study was presented by Katherine Cook, PhD, during a poster session at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. Dr. Cook is a researcher at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

Obesity increases risk of breast cancer, but it also alters the composition of the gut microbiome. Obesity is associated with a greater frequency of Firmicute bacteria phyla, compared with Bacteroidetes phyla, while abnormally low ratios are associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

In mice, the researchers previously showed that diet can lead to changes in the microbiome of both the gut and the breast. They conducted fecal transplants between mice who were fed normal or high-fat diets (HFD), and then used a chemical carcinogenesis model to investigate the impact on tumor outcomes. They observed changes in the microbiota populations in both the gut and the mammary glands when mice fed a normal diet received fecal transplants from HFD mice. On the other hand, when HFD mice received fecal transplants from mice with normal diets, the transplants countered the increase in serum lipopolysaccharide levels associated with HFD. In vitro models showed that microbiota from HFD mice also altered the epithelial permeability of breast tissue, and infection of breast cancer cells with HFD microbiota led to greater proliferation.

The researchers also examined breast cancer tissue from women who received omega-3 PUFA supplements or placebo before undergoing primary tumor resection, and found that there were differences in the proportional abundance of specific microbes between tumor and adjacent normal tissue, with the former having excess of Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcus. The finding suggests that these bacteria may grow better in a tumor microenvironment, and could play a role in breast cancer cell signaling. The supplements altered the microbiota of both normal and breast cancer tissue.

In the study presented at SABCS, the researchers analyzed fecal samples from 34 obese and overweight postmenopausal women involved in a weight-loss trial, who received 3.25 g/day of omega-3 PUFA supplements or placebo combined with calorie restriction and exercise. They performed metagenomic sequencing from the fecal samples at baseline and 6 months to determine microbiome populations.

Women who experienced weight loss, with or without omega-3 PUFA supplementation, had a decline in the abundance of Firmicutes phyla – a group linked to inflammation risk – as a percentage of overall bacterial phyla. The researchers found a similar trend among women who received omega-3 PUFA, regardless of how much weight they lost. At the species level, those who received supplements had higher proportional abundance of Phocaeicola massiliensis and reduced proportions of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, R. lactaris, Blautia obeum, and Dorea formicigenerans (P < .05).

Weight loss combined with supplementation also seemed to affect gut microbiota, with subjects who lost more than 10% of their body weight and received omega-3 PUFA supplements having elevated Bacteriodetes and reduced Firmicutes, compared with all other groups (P < .05).

At 6 months, the researchers grouped women by mean body fat composition, and found both positive and negative correlations among different bacterial species. Finally, the researchers looked at serum levels of the inflammatory cytokines interleukin-6, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), and tumor necrosis factor–alpha at 6 months. Women with elevated levels of at least two cytokines had higher levels of two species of mucin-degrading bacteria. Levels of MCP-1 alone also correlated with greater proportions of mucin-degrading bacteria (P < .05).

The authors concluded that increasing omega-3 PUFA uptake to about 2% of total daily calorie intake could push the gut microbiome in a direction that improves intestinal permeability parameters and reduces chronic inflammation. These changes could lead to a reduction in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer.

The study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM SABCS 2021

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Women struggle with benzodiazepine addiction post chemotherapy treatment

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/04/2023 - 16:58

SAN ANTONIO – Sedative-hypnotic medications, such as benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics commonly used to treat chemotherapy-related nausea, anxiety, and insomnia in women being treated for breast cancer, put women at high risk of dependency after chemotherapy treatment, shows a new study.

While benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics are effective for these indications, misuse and increased health care utilization can ensue from their prolonged use, said Jacob C. Cogan, MD, a fellow in oncology/hematology at the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York. Dr. Cogan recently presented the results of the study at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The study included patients with breast cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy between 2008 and 2017. Prescriptions for sedatives were divided into three periods: 365 days prior to chemotherapy to the start of chemotherapy (period one); start of chemotherapy to 90 days after the end of chemotherapy (period two); and 90-365 days after chemotherapy (period three). Patients who filled at least one benzodiazepine prescription in period two and patients who filled at least two benzodiazepine in period three were classified as new persistent benzodiazepine users. The same definitions were then used for nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics.

Among 17,532 benzodiazepine-naive patients (mean age, 57 years) and 21,863 nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotic drug–naive patients (mean age, 56 years) who received adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, lumpectomies were performed for a small majority (56.6% benzodiazepine naive, 55.1% nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics naive) versus mastectomy, and about half of patients received less than 4 months of chemotherapy (48.0% benzodiazepine naive, 48.6% nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics naive). Among benzodiazepine-naive patients, 4,447 (25.4%) filled at least one benzodiazepine prescription during chemotherapy, and 2,160 (9.9%) filled at least one nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotic prescription during chemotherapy. The rate of new persistent benzodiazepine use after initial exposure during chemotherapy was 26.8% (n = 1,192). Similarly, 33.8% (n = 730) of nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics users became new persistent users. In addition, 115 patients became new persistent users of both types of sedative-hypnotics.

New persistent benzodiazepine use was associated with several characteristics: age 50-65 (odds ratio, 1.23; P = .01) and age greater than 65 (OR, 1.38, P = .005) relative to age less than 49; as well as Medicaid insurance, relative to commercial and Medicare insurance (OR, 1.68; P < .0001). Both new persistent benzodiazepine and nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics use was associated with chemotherapy duration of less than 4 months relative to 4 or more months of chemotherapy (OR, 1.17; P = .03 for benzodiazepines; OR, 1.58; P < .0001 for nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics).

It is not clear why shorter chemotherapy duration is associated with more new persistent use, Dr. Cogan said. “It may be that, paradoxically, a shorter duration of treatment could lead to more anxiety about recurrence. These patients may need closer monitoring of mental health symptoms and earlier referral for psychological services.”

Dr. Cogan said that providers should take steps to ensure that benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine sedatives are used appropriately, which includes tapering dosages and, when appropriate, encouraging nonpharmacologic strategies.

There were no funding or other conflicts of interest associated with this study.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

SAN ANTONIO – Sedative-hypnotic medications, such as benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics commonly used to treat chemotherapy-related nausea, anxiety, and insomnia in women being treated for breast cancer, put women at high risk of dependency after chemotherapy treatment, shows a new study.

While benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics are effective for these indications, misuse and increased health care utilization can ensue from their prolonged use, said Jacob C. Cogan, MD, a fellow in oncology/hematology at the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York. Dr. Cogan recently presented the results of the study at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The study included patients with breast cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy between 2008 and 2017. Prescriptions for sedatives were divided into three periods: 365 days prior to chemotherapy to the start of chemotherapy (period one); start of chemotherapy to 90 days after the end of chemotherapy (period two); and 90-365 days after chemotherapy (period three). Patients who filled at least one benzodiazepine prescription in period two and patients who filled at least two benzodiazepine in period three were classified as new persistent benzodiazepine users. The same definitions were then used for nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics.

Among 17,532 benzodiazepine-naive patients (mean age, 57 years) and 21,863 nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotic drug–naive patients (mean age, 56 years) who received adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, lumpectomies were performed for a small majority (56.6% benzodiazepine naive, 55.1% nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics naive) versus mastectomy, and about half of patients received less than 4 months of chemotherapy (48.0% benzodiazepine naive, 48.6% nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics naive). Among benzodiazepine-naive patients, 4,447 (25.4%) filled at least one benzodiazepine prescription during chemotherapy, and 2,160 (9.9%) filled at least one nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotic prescription during chemotherapy. The rate of new persistent benzodiazepine use after initial exposure during chemotherapy was 26.8% (n = 1,192). Similarly, 33.8% (n = 730) of nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics users became new persistent users. In addition, 115 patients became new persistent users of both types of sedative-hypnotics.

New persistent benzodiazepine use was associated with several characteristics: age 50-65 (odds ratio, 1.23; P = .01) and age greater than 65 (OR, 1.38, P = .005) relative to age less than 49; as well as Medicaid insurance, relative to commercial and Medicare insurance (OR, 1.68; P < .0001). Both new persistent benzodiazepine and nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics use was associated with chemotherapy duration of less than 4 months relative to 4 or more months of chemotherapy (OR, 1.17; P = .03 for benzodiazepines; OR, 1.58; P < .0001 for nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics).

It is not clear why shorter chemotherapy duration is associated with more new persistent use, Dr. Cogan said. “It may be that, paradoxically, a shorter duration of treatment could lead to more anxiety about recurrence. These patients may need closer monitoring of mental health symptoms and earlier referral for psychological services.”

Dr. Cogan said that providers should take steps to ensure that benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine sedatives are used appropriately, which includes tapering dosages and, when appropriate, encouraging nonpharmacologic strategies.

There were no funding or other conflicts of interest associated with this study.

SAN ANTONIO – Sedative-hypnotic medications, such as benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics commonly used to treat chemotherapy-related nausea, anxiety, and insomnia in women being treated for breast cancer, put women at high risk of dependency after chemotherapy treatment, shows a new study.

While benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics are effective for these indications, misuse and increased health care utilization can ensue from their prolonged use, said Jacob C. Cogan, MD, a fellow in oncology/hematology at the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York. Dr. Cogan recently presented the results of the study at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The study included patients with breast cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy between 2008 and 2017. Prescriptions for sedatives were divided into three periods: 365 days prior to chemotherapy to the start of chemotherapy (period one); start of chemotherapy to 90 days after the end of chemotherapy (period two); and 90-365 days after chemotherapy (period three). Patients who filled at least one benzodiazepine prescription in period two and patients who filled at least two benzodiazepine in period three were classified as new persistent benzodiazepine users. The same definitions were then used for nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics.

Among 17,532 benzodiazepine-naive patients (mean age, 57 years) and 21,863 nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotic drug–naive patients (mean age, 56 years) who received adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, lumpectomies were performed for a small majority (56.6% benzodiazepine naive, 55.1% nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics naive) versus mastectomy, and about half of patients received less than 4 months of chemotherapy (48.0% benzodiazepine naive, 48.6% nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics naive). Among benzodiazepine-naive patients, 4,447 (25.4%) filled at least one benzodiazepine prescription during chemotherapy, and 2,160 (9.9%) filled at least one nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotic prescription during chemotherapy. The rate of new persistent benzodiazepine use after initial exposure during chemotherapy was 26.8% (n = 1,192). Similarly, 33.8% (n = 730) of nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics users became new persistent users. In addition, 115 patients became new persistent users of both types of sedative-hypnotics.

New persistent benzodiazepine use was associated with several characteristics: age 50-65 (odds ratio, 1.23; P = .01) and age greater than 65 (OR, 1.38, P = .005) relative to age less than 49; as well as Medicaid insurance, relative to commercial and Medicare insurance (OR, 1.68; P < .0001). Both new persistent benzodiazepine and nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics use was associated with chemotherapy duration of less than 4 months relative to 4 or more months of chemotherapy (OR, 1.17; P = .03 for benzodiazepines; OR, 1.58; P < .0001 for nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics).

It is not clear why shorter chemotherapy duration is associated with more new persistent use, Dr. Cogan said. “It may be that, paradoxically, a shorter duration of treatment could lead to more anxiety about recurrence. These patients may need closer monitoring of mental health symptoms and earlier referral for psychological services.”

Dr. Cogan said that providers should take steps to ensure that benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine sedatives are used appropriately, which includes tapering dosages and, when appropriate, encouraging nonpharmacologic strategies.

There were no funding or other conflicts of interest associated with this study.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT SABCS 2021

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Vitamin supplementation in healthy patients: What does the evidence support?

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 03/02/2022 - 15:10

Since their discovery in the early 1900s as the treatment for life-threatening deficiency syndromes, vitamins have been touted as panaceas for numerous ailments. While observational data have suggested potential correlations between vitamin status and every imaginable disease, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have generally failed to find benefits from supplementation. Despite this lack of proven efficacy, more than half of older adults reported taking vitamins regularly.1

While most clinicians consider vitamins to be, at worst, expensive placebos, the potential for harm and dangerous interactions exists. Unlike pharmaceuticals, vitamins are generally unregulated, and the true content of many dietary supplements is often difficult to elucidate. Understanding the physiologic role, foundational evidence, and specific indications for the various vitamins is key to providing the best recommendations to patients.

Vitamins are essential organic nutrients, required in small quantities for normal metabolism. Since they are not synthesized endogenously, they must be ingested via food intake. In the developed world, vitamin deficiency syndromes are rare, thanks to sufficiently balanced diets and availability of fortified foods. The focus of this article will be on vitamin supplementation in healthy patients with well-balanced diets. TABLE E12 lists the 13 recognized vitamins, their recommended dietary allowances, and any known toxicity risks. TABLE 22 outlines elements of the history to consider when evaluating for deficiency. A summary of the most clinically significant evidence for vitamin supplementation follows; a more comprehensive review can be found in TABLE 3.3-96

 

B Complex vitamins

Vitamin B1

 

Vitamers: Thiamine (thiamin)

Physiologic role: Critical in carbohydrate and amino-acid catabolism and energy metabolism

Dietary sources: Whole grains, meat, fish, fortified cereals, and breads

Thiamine serves as an essential cofactor in energy metabolism.2 Thiamine deficiency is responsible for beriberi syndrome (rare in the developed world) and Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, the latter of which is a relatively common complication of chronic alcohol dependence. Although thiamine’s administration in these conditions can be curative, evidence is lacking to support its use preventively in patients with alcoholism.3 Thiamine has additionally been theorized to play a role in cardiac and cognitive function, but RCT data has not shown consistent patient-oriented benefits.4,5

The takeaway: Given the lack of evidence, supplementation in the general population is not recommended.

Continue to: Vitamin B2...

 

 

Vitamin B2

Vitamers: Riboflavin

Physiologic role: Essential component of cellular function and growth, energy production, and metabolism of fats and drugs

Dietary sources: Eggs, organ meats, lean meats, milk, green vegetables, fortified cereals and grains Riboflavin is essential to energy production, cellular growth, and metabolism.2

The takeaway: Its use as migraine prophylaxis has limited data,97 but there is otherwise no evidence to support health benefits of riboflavin supplementation.

Vitamin B3

Vitamers: Nicotinic acid (niacin); nicotinamide (niacinamide); nicotinamide riboside

Physiologic role: Converted to nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), which is widely required in most cellular metabolic redox processes. Crucial to the synthesis and metabolism of carbohydrates, fatty acids, and proteins

Dietary sources: Poultry, beef, fish, nuts, legumes, grains. (Tryptophan can also be converted to NAD.)

Niacin is readily converted to NAD, an essential coenzyme for multiple catalytic processes in the body. While niacin at doses more than 100 times the recommended dietary allowance (RDA; 1-3 g/d) has been extensively studied for its role in dyslipidemias,2 pharmacologic dosing is beyond the scope of this article.

The takeaway: There is no evidence supporting a clinical benefit from niacin supplementation.

Vitamin B5

Vitamers: Pantothenic acid; pantethine

Physiologic role: Required for synthesis of coenzyme A (CoA) and acyl carrier protein, both essential in fatty acid and other anabolic/catabolic processes

Dietary sources: Almost all plant/animal-based foods. Richest sources include beef, chicken, organ meats, whole grains, and some vegetables

Pantothenic acid is essential to multiple metabolic processes and readily available in sufficient amounts in most foods.2 Although limited RCT data suggest pantethine may improve lipid measures,12,98,99 pantothenic acid itself does not seem to share this effect.

The takeaway: There is no data that supplementation of any form of vitamin B5 has any patient-oriented clinical benefits.

Continue to: Vitamin B6...

 

 

Vitamin B6

Vitamers: Pyridoxine; pyridoxamine; pyridoxal

Physiologic role: Widely involved coenzyme for cognitive development, neurotransmitter biosynthesis, homocysteine and glucose metabolism, immune function, and hemoglobin formation

Dietary sources: Fish, organ meats, potatoes/starchy vegetables, fruit (other than citrus), and fortified cereals

Pyridoxine is required for numerous enzymatic processes in the body, including biosynthesis of neurotransmitters and homeostasis of the amino acid homocysteine.2 While overt deficiency is rare, marginal insufficiency may become clinically apparent and has been associated with malabsorption, malignancies, pregnancy, heart disease, alcoholism, and use of drugs such as isoniazid, hydralazine, and levodopa/carbidopa.2 Vitamin B6 supplementation is known to decrease plasma homocysteine levels, a theorized intermediary for cardiovascular disease; however, studies have failed to consistently demonstrate patient-oriented benefits.100-102 While observational data has suggested a correlation between vitamin B6 status and cancer risk, RCTs have not supported benefit from supplementation.14-16 Potential effects of vitamin B6 supplementation on cognitive function have also been studied without observed benefit.17,18

The takeaway: Vitamin B6 is recommended as a potential treatment option for nausea in pregnancy.19 Otherwise, vitamin B6 is readily available in food, deficiency is rare, and no patient-oriented evidence supports supplementation in the general population.

Vitamin B7

Vitamers: Biotin

Physiologic role: Cofactor in the metabolism of fatty acids, glucose, and amino acids. Also plays key role in histone modifications, gene regulation, and cell signaling

Dietary sources: Widely available; most prevalent in organ meats, fish, meat, seeds, nuts, and vegetables (eg, sweet potatoes). Whole cooked eggs are a major source, but raw eggs contain avidin, which blocks absorption

Biotin serves a key role in metabolism, gene regulation, and cell signaling.2 Biotin is known to interfere with laboratory assays— including cardiac enzymes, thyroid studies, and hormone studies—at normal supplementation doses, resulting in both false-positive and false-negative results.103

The takeaway: No evidence supports the health benefits of biotin supplementation.

Vitamin B9

Vitamers: Folates; folic acid

Physiologic role: Functions as a coenzyme in the synthesis of DNA/RNA and metabolism of amino acids

Dietary sources: Highest content in spinach, liver, asparagus, and brussels sprouts. Generally found in green leafy vegetables, fruits, nuts, beans, peas, seafood, eggs, dairy, meat, poultry, grains, and fortified cereals.

Continue to: Vitamin B12...

 

 

Vitamin B12

Vitamers: Cyanocobalamin; hydroxocobalamin; methylcobalamin; adenosylcobalamin

Physiologic role: Required for red blood cell formation, neurologic function, and DNA synthesis

Dietary sources: Only in animal products: fish, poultry, meat, eggs, and milk/dairy products. Not present in plant foods. Fortified cereals, nutritional yeast are sources for vegans/vegetarians.

Given their linked physiologic roles, vitamins B9 and B12 are frequently studied together. Folate and cobalamins play key roles in nucleic acid synthesis and amino acid metabolism, with their most clinically significant role in hematopoiesis. Vitamin B12 is also essential to normal neurologic function.2

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends preconceptual folate supplementation of 0.4-0.8 mg/d in women of childbearing age to decrease the risk of fetal neural tube defects (grade A).21 This is supported by high-quality RCT evidence demonstrating a protective effect of daily folate supplementation in preventing neural tube defects.22 Folate supplementation’s effect on other fetal birth defects has been investigated, but no benefit has been demonstrated. While observational studies have suggested an inverse relationship with folate status and fetal autism spectrum disorder,23-25 the RCT data is mixed.26

A potential role for folate in cancer prevention has been extensively investigated. An expert panel of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded that folate supplementation does not reduce cancer risk in people with adequate baseline folate status based on high-quality meta-analysis data.27,104 Conversely, long-term follow-up from RCTs demonstrated an increased risk of colorectal adenomas and cancers,28,29 leading the NTP panel to conclude there is sufficient concern for adverse effects of folate on cancer growth to justify further research.104

While observational studies have found a correlation of increased risk for disease with lower antioxidant serum levels, RCTs have not demonstrated a reduction in disease risk with supplementation.

Given folate and vitamin B12’s homocysteine-reducing effects, it has been theorized that supplementation may protect from cardiovascular disease. However, despite extensive research, there remains no consistent patient-oriented outcomes data to support such a benefit.31,32,105

The evidence is mixed but generally has found no benefit of folate or vitamin B12 supplementation on cognitive function.18,33-35 Finally, RCT data has failed to demonstrate a reduction in fracture risk with supplementation.36,106

The takeaway: High-quality RCT evidence demonstrates a protective effect of preconceptual daily folate supplementation in preventing neural tube defects.22 The USPSTF recommends preconceptual folate supplementation of 0.4-0.8 mg/d in women of childbearing age to decrease the risk of fetal neural tube defects.

Antioxidants

In addition to their individual roles, vitamins A, E, and C are antioxidants, functioning to protect cells from oxidative damage by free radical species.2 Due to this shared role, these vitamins are commonly studied together. Antioxidants are hypothesized to protect from various diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, dementia, autoimmune disorders, depression, cataracts, and age-related vision decline.2,37,107-112

Though observational studies have found a correlation of increased risk for disease with lower antioxidant serum levels, RCTs have not demonstrated a reduction in disease risk with supplementation and, in some cases, have found an increased risk of mortality. While several studies have found potential benefit of antioxidant use in reducing colon and breast cancer risk,38,113-115 vitamins A and E have been associated with increased risk of lung and prostate cancer, respectively.47,110 Cardiovascular disease and antioxidant vitamin supplementation has similar inconsistent data, ranging from slight benefit to harm.2,116 After a large Cochrane review in 2012 found a significant increase in all-cause mortality associated with vitamin E and beta-carotene,117 the USPSTF made a specific recommendation against supplementation of these vitamins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer (grade D).118 Given its limited risk for harm, vitamin C was excluded from this recommendation.

Continue to: Vitamin A...

 

 

Vitamin A

Vitamers: Retinol; retinal; retinyl esters; provitamin A carotenoids (beta-carotene, alpha-carotene, beta-cryptoxanthin)

Physiologic role: Essential for vision and corneal development. Also involved in general cell differentiation and immune function

Dietary sources: Liver, fish oil, dairy, and fortified cereals. Provitamin A sources: leafy green vegetables, orange/yellow vegetables, tomato products, fruits, and vegetable oils Retinoids and their precursors, carotenoids, serve a critical function in vision, as well as regulating cell differentiation and proliferation throughout the body.2 While evidence suggests mortality benefit of supplementation in populations at risk of deficiency,45 wide-ranging studies have found either inconsistent benefit or outright harms in the developed world.

The takeaway: Given the USPSTF grade “D” recommendation and concern for potential harms, supplementation is not recommended in healthy patients without risk factors for deficiency.2

 

Vitamin E

Vitamers: Tocopherols (alpha-, beta-, gamma-, delta-); tocotrienol (alpha-, beta-, gamma-, delta-)

Physiologic role: Antioxidant; protects polyunsaturated fats from free radical oxidative damage. Involved in immune function, cell signaling, and regulation of gene expression

Dietary sources: Nuts, seeds, vegetable oil, green leafy vegetables, and fortified cereals

Vitamin E is the collective name of 8 compounds; alpha-tocopherol is the physiologically active form. Vitamin E is involved with cell proliferation as well as endothelial and platelet function.2

The takeaway: Vitamin E supplementation’s effects on cancer, cardiovascular disease, ophthalmologic disorders, and cognition have been investigated; data is either lacking to support a benefit or demonstrates harms as outlined above. Given this and the USPSTF grade “D” recommendation, supplementation is not recommended in healthy patients.2

Vitamin C

Vitamers: Ascorbic acid

Physiologic role: Required for synthesis of collagen, L-carnitine, and some neurotransmitters. Also involved in protein metabolism

Dietary sources: Primarily in fruits and vegetables: citrus, tomato, potatoes, red/green peppers, kiwi fruit, broccoli, strawberries, brussels sprouts, cantaloupe, and fortified cereals

Vitamin C supplementation at the onset of illness does not seem to have benefit.

Ascorbic acid is a required cofactor for biosynthesis of collagen, neurotransmitters, and protein metabolism.2 In addition to the shared hypothesized benefits of antioxidants, vitamin C supplementation has undergone extensive research into its potential role in augmenting the immune system and preventing the common cold. Systematic reviews have found daily vitamin C supplementation of at least 200 mg did not affect the incidence of the common cold in healthy adults but may shorten duration and could be of benefit in those exposed to extreme physical exercise or cold.48 Vitamin C supplementation at the onset of illness does not seem to have benefit.48 Data is insufficient to draw conclusions about a potential effect on pneumonia incidence or severity.119,120

The takeaway: Overall, data remain inconclusive as to potential benefits of vitamin C supplementation, although risks of potential harms are likely low.

Continue to: Vitamin D...

 

 

Vitamin D

Vitamers: Cholecalciferol (D3); ergocalciferol (D2)

Physiologic role: Hydroxylation in liver and kidney required to activate. Promotes dietary calcium absorption, enables normal bone mineralization. Also involved in modulation of cell growth, and neuromuscular and immune function

Dietary sources: Few natural dietary sources, which include fatty fish, fish liver oils; small amount in beef liver, cheese, egg yolks. Primary sources include fortified milk and endogenous synthesis in skin with UV exposure
Calciferol is a fat-soluble vitamin required for calcium and bone homeostasis. It is not naturally available in many foods but is primarily produced endogenously in the skin with ultraviolet light exposure.2

The AAP recommends supplementing exclusively breastfed infants with 400 IU/d of vitamin D to prevent rickets.

Bone density and fracture risk reduction are the most often cited benefits of vitamin D supplementation, but this has not been demonstrated consistently in RCTs. Multiple systematic reviews showing inconsistent benefit of vitamin D (with or without calcium) on fracture risk led the USPSTF to conclude that there is insufficient evidence (grade I) to issue a recommendation on vitamin D and calcium supplementation for primary prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women.49-51 Despite some initial evidence suggesting a benefit of vitamin D supplementation on falls reduction, 3 recent systematic reviews did not demonstrate this in community-dwelling elders,54-56 although a separate Cochrane review did suggest a reduction in rate of falls among institutionalized elders.57

The takeaway: Given these findings, the USPSTF has recommended against (grade D) vitamin D supplementation to prevent falls in community-dwelling elders.55

Beyond falls. While the vitamin D receptor is expressed throughout the body and observational studies have suggested a correlation between vitamin D status and many outcomes, extensive RCT data has generally failed to demonstrate extraskeletal benefits from supplementation. Meta-analysis data have demonstrated potential reductions in acute respiratory infection rates and asthma exacerbations with vitamin D supplementation. There is also limited evidence suggesting a reduction in preeclampsia and low-birthweight infant risk with vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy. However, several large meta-analyses and systematic reviews have investigated vitamin D supplementation’s effect on all-cause mortality and found no consistent data to support an association.41,58-62

Multiple systematic reviews have investigated and found high-quality evidence demonstrating no association between vitamin D supplementation and cancer41,63-66,121 or cardiovascular disease risk.41,70,71 There is high-quality data showing no benefit of vitamin D supplementation for multiple additional diseases, including diabetes, cognitive decline, depression, pain, obesity, and liver disease.43,72-75,85-90,122

The takeaway: Due to poor availability in breastmilk, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends supplementing exclusively breastfed infants with 400 IU/d of vitamin D to prevent rickets.123 RCT data support high-dose supplementation of lactating women (6400 IU/d) as an alternative strategy to supplementation of the infant.124 The AAP recommends that all nonbreastfeeding infants and older children ingesting < 1000 mL/d of vitamin D–fortified formula or milk should also be supplemented with 400 IU/d of vitamin D.123 Despite these universal recommendations for supplementation, evidence is mixed on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on bone health in children.52,53

Although concerns about vitamin D supplementation and increased risk of urolithiasis and hypercalcemia have been raised,51,62,121 systematic reviews have not demonstrated significant, clinically relevant risks, even with high-dose supplementation (> 2800 IU/d).125,126

Vitamin K

Vitamers: Phylloquinone (K1); menaquinones (K2)

Physiologic role: Coenzyme for synthesis of proteins involved in hemostasis and bone metabolism

Dietary sources: Phylloquinone is found in green leafy vegetables, vegetable oils, some fruits, meat, dairy, and eggs. Menaquinone is produced by gut bacteria and present in fermented foods

Vitamin K includes 2 groups of similar compounds: phylloquinone and menaquinones. Unlike other fat-soluble vitamins, vitamin K is rapidly metabolized and has low tissue storage.2

Children taking multivitamins were often found to have excess levels of potentially harmful nutrients, such as retinol, zinc, and folic acid.

Administration of vitamin K 0.5 to 1 mg intramuscularly (IM) to newborns is standard of care for the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). This is supported by RCT data demonstrating a reduction in classic VKDB (occurring within 7 days)91 and epidemiologic data from various countries showing a reduction in late-onset VKDB with vitamin K prophylaxis programs.127 Oral dosing appears to reduce the risk of VKDB in the setting of parental refusal but is less effective than IM dosing.128,129

Vitamin K’s effects on bone density and fracture risk have also been investigated. Systematic reviews have demonstrated a reduction in fracture risk with vitamin K supplementation,92,93 and European and Asian regulatory bodies have recognized a potential benefit on bone health.2 The FDA considers the evidence insufficient at this time to support such a claim.2 Higher dietary vitamin K consumption has been associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease in observational studies94 and supplementation was associated with improved disease measures,130 but no patient-oriented outcomes have been demonstrated.131

The takeaway: The administration of vitamin K 0.5 to 1 mg intramuscularly (IM) to newborns is standard of care for the prevention of VKDB. Vitamin K may lead to a reduction in fracture risk, but the FDA considers the evidence insufficient. Vitamin K’s potential link to a lowered risk of cardiovascular disease has not been demonstrated with patient-oriented outcomes. Vitamin K has low potential for toxicity, although its interaction with vitamin K antagonists (ie, warfarin) is clinically relevant.

Multivitamins

Multivitamins are often defined as a supplement containing 3 or more vitamins and minerals but without herbs, hormones, or drugs.132 Many multivitamins do contain additional substances, and some include levels of vitamins that exceed the RDA or even the established tolerable upper intake level.133

Safe medication storage should be practiced, as multivitamins with iron are a leading cause of poisoning in children.

A 2013 systematic review found limited evidence to support any benefit from multivitamin supplementation.41 Two included RCTs demonstrated a narrowly significant decrease in cancer rates among men, but saw no effect in women or the combined population.134,135 This benefit appears to disappear at 5 years of follow-up.136 RCT data have shown no benefit of multivitamin use on cognitive function,95 and high-quality data suggest there is no effect on all-cause mortality.137 Given this lack of supporting evidence, the USPSTF has concluded that there is insufficient evidence (grade I) to recommend vitamin supplementation in general to prevent cardiovascular disease or cancer.41

The use of prenatal multivitamins is generally recommended in the pregnancy and preconception period and has been associated with reduced risk of autism spectrum disorders, pediatric cancer rates, small-for-gestational-age infants, and multiple birth defects in offspring; however, studies have not examined if this benefit exceeds that of folate supplementation alone.138-140 AAP does not recommend multivitamins for children with a well-balanced diet.141 Of concern, children taking multivitamins were often found to have excess levels of potentially harmful nutrients such as retinol, zinc, and folic acid.142

The takeaway: There is limited evidence to support any benefit from multivitamin supplementation. Prenatal multivitamins are generally recommended in the pregnancy and preconception period. Overall, the risks of multivitamins are minimal, although that risk is dependent on the multivitamin’s constituent components.143 Components such as vitamin K may interact with a patient’s medications, and multivitamins have been shown to reduce the circulating levels of antiretrovirals.144 Specifically, multivitamins with iron should be avoided in men and postmenopausal women, and safe medication storage should be practiced as multivitamins with iron are a leading cause of poisoning in children.2
 

Summary

Vitamin supplementation in the developed world remains common despite a paucity of RCT data supporting it. Supplementation of folate in women planning to conceive, vitamin D in breastfeeding infants, and vitamin K in newborns are well supported by clinical evidence. Otherwise, there is limited evidence supporting clinically significant benefit from supplementation in healthy patients with well-balanced diets—and in the case of vitamins A and E, there may be outright harms.

References


1. Half of Americans take vitamins regularly. Accessed June 16, 2020. https://news.gallup.com/poll/166541/half-americans-vitamins-regularly.aspx

2. National Institutes of Health. Vitamin and mineral supplement fact sheets. Published 2020. Accessed May 26, 2020. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/list-VitaminsMinerals/

3. Day E, Bentham PW, Callaghan R, et al. Thiamine for prevention and treatment of Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome in people who abuse alcohol. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(7):CD004033. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004033.pub3

4. DiNicolantonio JJ, Niazi AK, Lavie CJ, et al. Thiamine supplementation for the treatment of heart failure: a review of the literature. Congest Heart Fail. 2013;19:214-222. doi:10.1111/chf.12037

5. Rodríguez-Martín JL, Qizilbash N, López-Arrieta JM. Thiamine for Alzheimer’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(2):CD001498. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001498

6. Schoenen J, Jacquy J, Lenaerts M. Effectiveness of high-dose riboflavin in migraine prophylaxis. A randomized controlled trial. Neurology. 1998;50:466-470. doi:10.1212/wnl.50.2.466

7. Johansson M, Relton C, Ueland PM, et al. Serum B vitamin levels and risk of lung cancer. JAMA. 2010;303:2377-2385. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.808

8. Kabat GC, Miller AB, Jain M, et al. Dietary intake of selected B vitamins in relation to risk of major cancers in women. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:816-821. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604540

9. Zschäbitz S, Cheng T-YD, Neuhouser ML, et al. B vitamin intakes and incidence of colorectal cancer: results from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97:332-343. doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.034736

10. de Vogel S, Dindore V, van Engeland M, et al. Dietary folate, methionine, riboflavin, and vitamin B-6 and risk of sporadic colorectal cancer. J Nutr. 2008;138:2372-2378. doi:10.3945/jn.108.091157

11. Bassett JK, Hodge AM, English DR, et al. Dietary intake of B vitamins and methionine and risk of lung cancer. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012;66:182-187. doi:10.1038/ejcn.2011.157

12. McRae MP. Treatment of hyperlipoproteinemia with pantethine: a review and analysis of efficacy and tolerability. Nutr Res. 2005; 25:319-333.

13. Saposnik G, Ray JG, Sheridan P, et al; Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation 2 Investigators. Homocysteine-lowering therapy and stroke risk, severity, and disability: additional findings from the HOPE 2 trial. Stroke. 2009;40:1365-1372. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.529503

14. Larsson SC, Orsini N, Wolk A. Vitamin B6 and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 2010;303:1077-1083. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.263

15. Mocellin S, Briarava M, Pilati P. Vitamin B6 and cancer risk: a field synopsis and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109:1-9. doi:10.1093/jnci/djw230

16. Ebbing M, Bønaa KH, Nygård O, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality after treatment with folic acid and vitamin B12. JAMA. 2009;302:2119-2126. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1622

17. Malouf R, Grimley Evans J. The effect of vitamin B6 on cognition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD004393. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004393

18. Balk EM, Raman G, Tatsioni A, et al. Vitamin B6, B12, and folic acid supplementation and cognitive function: a systematic review of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:21-30. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.1.21

19. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. ACOG Practice Bulletin: nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:803-814.

20. Matthews A, Dowswell T, Haas DM, et al. Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(9):CD007575. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007575.pub2

21. US Preventive Services Task Force. Folic acid for the prevention of neural tube defects: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:626-631.

22. De-Regil LM, Peña-Rosas JP, Fernández-Gaxiola AC, et al. Effects and safety of periconceptional oral folate supplementation for preventing birth defects. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(12):CD007950. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007950.pub3

23. Surén P, Roth C, Bresnahan M, et al. Association between maternal use of folic acid supplements and risk of autism spectrum disorders in children. JAMA. 2013;309:570-577. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.155925

24. Schmidt RJ, Tancredi DJ, Ozonoff S, et al. Maternal periconceptional folic acid intake and risk of autism spectrum disorders and developmental delay in the CHARGE (CHildhood Autism Risks from Genetics and Environment) case-control study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96:80-89. doi:10.3945/ajcn.110.004416

25. Levine SZ, Kodesh A, Viktorin A, et al. Association of maternal use of folic acid and multivitamin supplements in the periods before and during pregnancy with the risk of autism spectrum disorder in offspring. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75:176-184. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4050

26. Virk J, Liew Z, Olsen J, et al. Preconceptional and prenatal supplementary folic acid and multivitamin intake and autism spectrum disorders. Autism. 2016;20:710-718. doi:10.1177/1362361315604076

27. Vollset SE, Clarke R, Lewington S, et al. Effects of folic acid supplementation on overall and site-specific cancer incidence during the randomised trials: meta-analyses of data on 50,000 individuals. Lancet. 2013;381:1029-1036. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62001-7

28. Passarelli MN, Barry EL, Rees JR, et al. Folic acid supplementation and risk of colorectal neoplasia during long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019;110:903-911. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqz160

29. Oliai Araghi S, Kiefte-de Jong JC, van Dijk SC, et al. Folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation and the risk of cancer: long-term follow-up of the B vitamins for the Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures (B-PROOF) Trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019;28:275-282. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-1198

30. Wan Ismail WR, Abdul Rahman R, et al. The protective effect of maternal folic acid supplementation on childhood cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies. J Prev Med Public Health. 2019;52:205-213. doi:10.3961/jpmph.19.020

31. Martí-Carvajal AJ, Solà I, Lathyris D, et al. Homocysteine lowering interventions for preventing cardiovascular events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):CD006612. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006612.pub2

32. Wang Y, Jin Y, Wang Y, et al. The effect of folic acid in patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2019;98:e17095. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000017095

33. Malouf R, Areosa Sastre A. Vitamin B12 for cognition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD004326. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004326

34. Malouf R, Grimley Evans J. Folic acid with or without vitamin B12 for the prevention and treatment of healthy elderly and demented people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD004514. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004514.pub2

35. Suh SW, Kim HS, Han JH, et al. Efficacy of vitamins on cognitive function of non-demented people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2020;12(4). doi:10.3390/nu12041168

36. Stone KL, Lui L-Y, Christen WG, et al. Effect of combination folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 supplementation on fracture risk in women: a randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32:2331-2338. doi:10.1002/jbmr.3229

37. Age-related Eye Disease Study Research Group. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E, beta carotene, and zinc for age-related macular degeneration and vision loss: AREDS report no. 8. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1417-1436. doi:10.1001/archopht.119.10.1417

38. Park Y, Spiegelman D, Hunter DJ, et al. Intakes of vitamins A, C, and E and use of multiple vitamin supplements and risk of colon cancer: a pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies. Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21:1745-1757. doi:10.1007/s10552-010-9549-y

39. Koushik A, Wang M, Anderson KE, et al. Intake of vitamins A, C, and E and folate and the risk of ovarian cancer in a pooled analysis of 10 cohort studies. Cancer Causes Control. 2015;26:1315-1327. doi:10.1007/s10552-015-0626-0

40. Lin J, Cook NR, Albert C, et al. Vitamins C and E and beta carotene supplementation and cancer risk: a randomized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:14-23. doi:10.1093/jnci/djn438

41. Fortmann SP, Burda BU, Senger CA, et al. Vitamin and mineral supplements in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer: an updated systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:824-834. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-12-201312170-00729

42. Mathew MC, Ervin A-M, Tao J, et al. Antioxidant vitamin supplementation for preventing and slowing the progression of age-related cataract. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD004567. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004567.pub2

43. Butler M, Nelson VA, Davila H, et al. Over-the-counter supplement interventions to prevent cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and clinical Alzheimer-type dementia: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:52-62. doi:10.7326/M17-1530

44. Crandall C. Vitamin A intake and osteoporosis: a clinical review. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2004;13:939-953. doi:10.1089/jwh.2004.13.939

45. Kranz S, Pimpin L, Fawzi W, et al. Mortality benefits of vitamin A are not affected by varying frequency, total dose, or duration of supplementation. Food Nutr Bull. 2017;38:260-266. doi:10.1177/0379572117696663

46. Miller ER, Pastor-Barriuso R, Dalal D, et al. Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:37-46. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-142-1-200501040-00110

47. Klein EA, Thompson IM, Tangen CM, et al. Vitamin E and the risk of prostate cancer: the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT). JAMA. 2011;306:1549-1556. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1437

48. Hemilä H, Chalker E. Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(1):CD000980. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4

49. Avenell A, Mak JCS, O’Connell D. Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures in post-menopausal women and older men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(4):CD000227. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000227.pub4

50. Zhao J-G, Zeng X-T, Wang J, et al. Association between calcium or vitamin D supplementation and fracture incidence in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2017;318:2466-2482. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19344

51. Kahwati LC, Weber RP, Pan H, et al. Vitamin D, calcium, or combined supplementation for the primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling adults: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319:1600-1612. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21640

52. Winzenberg T, Powell S, Shaw KA, et al. Effects of vitamin D supplementation on bone density in healthy children: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;342:c7254. doi:10.1136/bmj.c7254

53. Winzenberg TM, Powell S, Shaw KA, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for improving bone mineral density in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(10):CD006944. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006944.pub2

54. Bolland MJ, Grey A, Gamble GD, et al. Vitamin D supplementation and falls: a trial sequential meta-analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2:573-580. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70068-3

55. Guirguis-Blake JM, Michael YL, Perdue LA, et al. Interventions to prevent falls in older adults: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319:1705-1716. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21962

56. Gillespie LD, Robertson MC, Gillespie WJ, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(9):CD007146. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007146.pub3

57. Cameron ID, Dyer SM, Panagoda CE, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities and hospitals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;9:CD005465. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005465.pub4

58. Chung M, Balk EM, Brendel M, et al. Vitamin D and calcium: a systematic review of health outcomes. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2009;(183):1-420.

59. Autier P, Gandini S. Vitamin D supplementation and total mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1730-1737. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.16.1730

60. Zhang Y, Fang F, Tang J, et al. Association between vitamin D supplementation and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;366:l4673. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4673

61. Cauley JA, Chlebowski RT, Wactawski-Wende J, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and health outcomes five years after active intervention ended: the Women’s Health Initiative. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013;22:915-929. doi:10.1089/jwh.2013.4270

62. Bjelakovic G, Gluud LL, Nikolova D, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD007470. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007470.pub3

63. Zhou L, Chen B, Sheng L, et al. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of breast cancer: a trial sequential meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;182:1-8. doi:10.1007/s10549-020-05669-4

64. Shahvazi S, Soltani S, Ahmadi SM, et al A. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Horm Metab Res. 2019;51:11-21. doi:10.1055/a-0774-8809

65. Buttigliero C, Monagheddu C, Petroni P, et al. Prognostic role of vitamin d status and efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in cancer patients: a systematic review. Oncologist. 2011;16:1215-1227. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0098

66. Cortés-Jofré M, Rueda J-R, Asenjo-Lobos C, et al. Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;3:CD002141. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002141.pub3

67. Elamin MB, Abu Elnour NO, Elamin KB, et al. Vitamin D and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96:1931-1942. doi:10.1210/jc.2011-0398

68. Pittas AG, Chung M, Trikalinos T, et al. Systematic review: vitamin D and cardiometabolic outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:307-314. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-5-201003020-00009

69. Ford JA, MacLennan GS, Avenell A, et al. Cardiovascular disease and vitamin D supplementation: trial analysis, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100:746-755. doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.082602

70. Beveridge LA, Struthers AD, Khan F, et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis incorporating individual patient data. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:745-754. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0237

71. Qi D, Nie X, Cai J. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on hypertension in non-CKD populations: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2017;227:177-186. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.040

72. Rutjes AW, Denton DA, Di Nisio M, et al. Vitamin and mineral supplementation for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in mid and late life. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;12:CD011906. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011906.pub2

73. Straube S, Derry S, Straube C, et al. Vitamin D for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(5):CD007771. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007771.pub3

74. Zadro JR, Shirley D, Ferreira M, et al. Is vitamin D supplementation effective for low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician. 2018;21:121-145.

75. Wu Z, Malihi Z, Stewart AW, et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician. 2016;19:415-427.

76. Palacios C, Kostiuk LK, Peña-Rosas JP. Vitamin D supplementation for women during pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;7:CD008873. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008873.pub4

77. Bi WG, Nuyt AM, Weiler H, et al. Association between vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy and offspring growth, morbidity, and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172:635-645. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0302

78. Yepes-Nuñez JJ, Brożek JL, Fiocchi A, et al. Vitamin D supplementation in primary allergy prevention: Systematic review of randomized and non-randomized studies. Allergy. 2018;73:37-49. doi:10.1111/all.13241

79. Purswani JM, Gala P, Dwarkanath P, et al. The role of vitamin D in pre-eclampsia: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:231. doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1408-3

80. Khaing W, Vallibhakara SA-O, Tantrakul V, et al. Calcium and vitamin D supplementation for prevention of preeclampsia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2017;9:1141. doi:10.3390/nu9101141

81. Palacios C, De-Regil LM, Lombardo LK, et al. Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy: updated meta-analysis on maternal outcomes. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2016;164:148-155. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.02.008

82. Litonjua AA, Carey VJ, Laranjo N, et al. Six-year follow-up of a trial of antenatal vitamin D for asthma reduction. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:525-533. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1906137

83. Martineau AR, Jolliffe DA, Hooper RL, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583

84. Jolliffe DA, Greenberg L, Hooper RL, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent asthma exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet Respir Med. 2017;5:881-890. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(17)30306-5

85. Chandler PD, Wang L, Zhang X, et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation alone or with calcium on adiposity measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Rev. 2015;73:577-593. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuv012

86. Gowda U, Mutowo MP, Smith BJ, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to reduce depression in adults: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutrition. 2015;31:421-429. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2014.06.017

87. Li G, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, et al. Efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in depression in adults: a systematic review. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99:757-767. doi:10.1210/jc.2013-3450

88. Pittas AG, Dawson-Hughes B, Sheehan P, et al. Vitamin D supplementation and prevention of type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:520-530. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1900906

89. Lee CJ, Iyer G, Liu Y, et al. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies. J Diabetes Complicat. 2017;31:1115-1126. doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2017.04.019

90. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Bjelakovic M, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for chronic liver diseases in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11:CD011564. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011564.pub2

91. Sankar MJ, Chandrasekaran A, Kumar P, et al. Vitamin K prophylaxis for prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding: a systematic review. J Perinatol. 2016;36(suppl 1):S29-S35. doi:10.1038/jp.2016.30

92. Mott A, Bradley T, Wright K, et al. Effect of vitamin K on bone mineral density and fractures in adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30:1543-1559. doi:10.1007/s00198-019-04949-0

93. Cockayne S, Adamson J, Lanham-New S, et al. Vitamin K and the prevention of fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1256-1261. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.12.1256

94. Chen H-G, Sheng L-T, Zhang Y-B, et al. Association of vitamin K with cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nutr. 2019;58:2191-2205. doi:10.1007/s00394-019-01998-3

95. Grodstein F, O’Brien J, Kang JH, et al. Long-term multivitamin supplementation and cognitive function in men: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:806-814. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-12-201312170-00006

96. Christen WG, Glynn RJ, Manson JE, et al. Effects of multivitamin supplement on cataract and age-related macular degeneration in a randomized trial of male physicians. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:525-534. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.09.038

97. Holland S, Silberstein SD, Freitag F, et al. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78:1346-1353. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182535d0c

98. Rumberger JA, Napolitano J, Azumano I, et al. Pantethine, a derivative of vitamin B(5) used as a nutritional supplement, favorably alters low-density lipoprotein cholesterol metabolism in low- to moderate-cardiovascular risk North American subjects: a triple-blinded placebo and diet-controlled investigation. Nutr Res. 2011;31:608-615. doi:10.1016/j.nutres.2011.08.001

99. Evans M, Rumberger JA, Azumano I, et al. Pantethine, a derivative of vitamin B5, favorably alters total, LDL and non-HDL cholesterol in low to moderate cardiovascular risk subjects eligible for statin therapy: a triple-blinded placebo and diet-controlled investigation. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2014;10:89-100. doi:10.2147/VHRM.S57116

100. Ebbing M, Bønaa KH, Arnesen E, et al. Combined analyses and extended follow-up of two randomized controlled homocysteine-lowering B-vitamin trials. J Intern Med. 2010;268:367-382. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02259.x

101. Toole JF, Malinow MR, Chambless LE, et al. Lowering homocysteine in patients with ischemic stroke to prevent recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, and death: the Vitamin Intervention for Stroke Prevention (VISP) randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;291:565-575. doi:10.1001/jama.291.5.565

102. Albert CM, Cook NR, Gaziano JM, et al. Effect of folic acid and B vitamins on risk of cardiovascular events and total mortality among women at high risk for cardiovascular disease: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2008;299:2027-2036. doi:10.1001/jama.299.17.2027

103. FDA. The FDA warns that biotin may interfere with lab tests: FDA Safety Communication. Accessed June 1, 2020. www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/update-fda-warns-biotin-may-interfere-lab-tests-fda-safety-communication

104. National Toxicology Program. Identifying research needs for assessing safe use of high intakes of folic acid. Published 2015. Accessed June 7, 2020. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/folicacid/final_monograph_508.pdf

105. Miller ER, Juraschek S, Pastor-Barriuso R, et al. Meta-analysis of folic acid supplementation trials on risk of cardiovascular disease and risk interaction with baseline homocysteine levels. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:517-527. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.03.064

106. van Wijngaarden JP, Swart KMA, Enneman AW, et al. Effect of daily vitamin B-12 and folic acid supplementation on fracture incidence in elderly individuals with an elevated plasma homocysteine concentration: B-PROOF, a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100:1578-1586. doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.090043

107. Harirchian MH, Mohammadpour Z, Fatehi F, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluating the trend of cytokines to vitamin A supplementation in autoimmune diseases. Clin Nutr. 2019;38:2038-2044. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2018.10.026

108. Liu T, Zhong S, Liao X, et al. A meta-analysis of oxidative stress markers in depression. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0138904. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138904

109. Zeng J, Chen L, Wang Z, et al. Marginal vitamin A deficiency facilitates Alzheimer’s pathogenesis. Acta Neuropathol. 2017;133:967-982. doi:10.1007/s00401-017-1669-y

110. Omenn GS, Goodman GE, Thornquist MD, et al. Effects of a combination of beta carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1150-1155. doi:10.1056/NEJM199605023341802

111. Kanellopoulou A, Riza E, Samoli E, et al. Dietary supplement use after cancer diagnosis in relation to total mortality, cancer mortality and recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Cancer. 2021;73:16-30. doi:10.1080/01635581.2020.1734215

112. Sunkara A, Raizner A. Supplemental vitamins and minerals for cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2019;15:179-184. doi:10.14797/mdcj-15-3-179

113. Zhang S, Hunter DJ, Forman MR, et al. Dietary carotenoids and vitamins A, C, and E and risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:547-556. doi:10.1093/jnci/91.6.547

114. He J, Gu Y, Zhang S. Vitamin A and breast cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18:e1389-e1400. doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2018.07.025

115. Harris HR, Orsini N, Wolk A. Vitamin C and survival among women with breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:1223-1231. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2014.02.013

116. Moser MA, Chun OK. Vitamin C and heart health: a review based on findings from epidemiologic studies. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17. doi:10.3390/ijms17081328

117. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, et al. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(3):CD007176. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007176.pub2

118. US Preventive Services Task Force. Vitamin supplementation to prevent cancer and CVD: preventive medication. Accessed May 21, 2020. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/vitamin-supplementation-to-prevent-cancer-and-cvd-counseling

119. Hemilä H, Louhiala P. Vitamin C for preventing and treating pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(8):CD005532. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005532.pub3

120. Padhani ZA, Moazzam Z, Ashraf A, et al. Vitamin C supplementation for prevention and treatment of pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;4:CD013134. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013134.pub2

121. Bjelakovic G, Gluud LL, Nikolova D, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(6):CD007469. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007469.pub2

122. Autier P, Mullie P, Macacu A, et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on non-skeletal disorders: a systematic review of meta-analyses and randomised trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5:986-1004. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30357-1

123. Wagner CL, Greer FR; American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Breastfeeding, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition. Prevention of rickets and vitamin D deficiency in infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2008;122:1142-1152. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-1862

124. Hollis BW, Wagner CL, Howard CR, et al. Maternal versus infant vitamin D supplementation during lactation: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2015;136:625-634. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-1669

125. Malihi Z, Wu Z, Stewart AW, et al. Hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, and kidney stones in long-term studies of vitamin D supplementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;104:1039-1051. doi:10.3945/ajcn.116.134981

126. Vogiatzi MG, Jacobson-Dickman E, DeBoer MD; Drugs, and Therapeutics Committee of The Pediatric Endocrine Society. Vitamin D supplementation and risk of toxicity in pediatrics: a review of current literature. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99:1132-1141. doi:10.1210/jc.2013-3655

127. Zurynski Y, Grover CJ, Jalaludin B, et al. Vitamin K deficiency bleeding in Australian infants 1993-2017: an Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit study. Arch Dis Child. 2020;105:433-438. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2018-316424

128. Ng E, Loewy AD. Guidelines for vitamin K prophylaxis in newborns: a joint statement of the Canadian Paediatric Society and the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Can Fam Physician. 2018;64:736-739.

129. Araki S, Shirahata A. Vitamin K deficiency bleeding in infancy. Nutrients. 2020;12:780. doi:10.3390/nu12030780

130. Shea MK, Holden RM. Vitamin K status and vascular calcification: evidence from observational and clinical studies. Adv Nutr. 2012;3:158-165. doi:10.3945/an.111.001644

131. Hartley L, Clar C, Ghannam O, et al. Vitamin K for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(9):CD011148. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011148.pub2

132. Huang H-Y, Caballero B, Chang S, et al. Multivitamin/mineral supplements and prevention of chronic disease. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2006;(139):1-117.

133. Bailey RL, Gahche JJ, Lentino CV, et al. Dietary supplement use in the United States, 2003-2006. J Nutr. 2011;141:261-266. doi:10.3945/jn.110.133025

134. Gaziano JM, Sesso HD, Christen WG, et al. Multivitamins in the prevention of cancer in men: the Physicians’ Health Study II randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2012;308:1871-1880. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.14641

135. Hercberg S, Galan P, Preziosi P, et al. The SU.VI.MAX Study: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the health effects of antioxidant vitamins and minerals. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2335-2342. doi:10.1001/archinte.164.21.2335

136. Hercberg S, Kesse-Guyot E, Druesne-Pecollo N, et al. Incidence of cancers, ischemic cardiovascular diseases and mortality during 5-year follow-up after stopping antioxidant vitamins and minerals supplements: a postintervention follow-up in the SU.VI.MAX Study. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:1875-1881. doi:10.1002/ijc.25201

137. Khan SU, Khan MU, Riaz H, et al. Effects of nutritional supplements and dietary interventions on cardiovascular outcomes: an umbrella review and evidence map. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:190-198. doi:10.7326/M19-0341

138. Guo B-Q, Li H-B, Zhai D-S, et al. Maternal multivitamin supplementation is associated with a reduced risk of autism spectrum disorder in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Res. 2019;65:4-16. doi:10.1016/j.nutres.2019.02.003

139. Wolf HT, Hegaard HK, Huusom LD, et al. Multivitamin use and adverse birth outcomes in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:404.e1-404.e30. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.03.029

140. Goh YI, Bollano E, Einarson TR, et al. Prenatal multivitamin supplementation and rates of pediatric cancers: a meta-analysis. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;81:685-691. doi:10.1038/sj.clpt.6100100

141. HealthyChildren.org. Where we stand: vitamins. Accessed June 27, 2020. www.healthychildren.org/English/healthy-living/nutrition/Pages/Where-We-Stand-Vitamins.aspx

142. Bailey RL, Catellier DJ, Jun S, et al. Total usual nutrient intakes of US children (under 48 months): findings from the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study (FITS) 2016. J Nutr. 2018;148:1557S-1566S. doi:10.1093/jn/nxy042

143. Biesalski HK, Tinz J. Multivitamin/mineral supplements: rationale and safety. Nutrition. 2017;36:60-66. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2016.06.003

144. Jalloh MA, Gregory PJ, Hein D, et al. Dietary supplement interactions with antiretrovirals: a systematic review. Int J STD AIDS. 2017;28:4-15. doi:10.1177/0956462416671087

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

Mike O’Callaghan Military Medical Center Family Medicine Residency Program, Nellis AFB, Nevada.

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

 

Issue
OBG Management - 34(2)
Publications
Author and Disclosure Information

 

Mike O’Callaghan Military Medical Center Family Medicine Residency Program, Nellis AFB, Nevada.

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

 

Author and Disclosure Information

 

Mike O’Callaghan Military Medical Center Family Medicine Residency Program, Nellis AFB, Nevada.

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

 

Article PDF
Article PDF

Since their discovery in the early 1900s as the treatment for life-threatening deficiency syndromes, vitamins have been touted as panaceas for numerous ailments. While observational data have suggested potential correlations between vitamin status and every imaginable disease, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have generally failed to find benefits from supplementation. Despite this lack of proven efficacy, more than half of older adults reported taking vitamins regularly.1

While most clinicians consider vitamins to be, at worst, expensive placebos, the potential for harm and dangerous interactions exists. Unlike pharmaceuticals, vitamins are generally unregulated, and the true content of many dietary supplements is often difficult to elucidate. Understanding the physiologic role, foundational evidence, and specific indications for the various vitamins is key to providing the best recommendations to patients.

Vitamins are essential organic nutrients, required in small quantities for normal metabolism. Since they are not synthesized endogenously, they must be ingested via food intake. In the developed world, vitamin deficiency syndromes are rare, thanks to sufficiently balanced diets and availability of fortified foods. The focus of this article will be on vitamin supplementation in healthy patients with well-balanced diets. TABLE E12 lists the 13 recognized vitamins, their recommended dietary allowances, and any known toxicity risks. TABLE 22 outlines elements of the history to consider when evaluating for deficiency. A summary of the most clinically significant evidence for vitamin supplementation follows; a more comprehensive review can be found in TABLE 3.3-96

 

B Complex vitamins

Vitamin B1

 

Vitamers: Thiamine (thiamin)

Physiologic role: Critical in carbohydrate and amino-acid catabolism and energy metabolism

Dietary sources: Whole grains, meat, fish, fortified cereals, and breads

Thiamine serves as an essential cofactor in energy metabolism.2 Thiamine deficiency is responsible for beriberi syndrome (rare in the developed world) and Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, the latter of which is a relatively common complication of chronic alcohol dependence. Although thiamine’s administration in these conditions can be curative, evidence is lacking to support its use preventively in patients with alcoholism.3 Thiamine has additionally been theorized to play a role in cardiac and cognitive function, but RCT data has not shown consistent patient-oriented benefits.4,5

The takeaway: Given the lack of evidence, supplementation in the general population is not recommended.

Continue to: Vitamin B2...

 

 

Vitamin B2

Vitamers: Riboflavin

Physiologic role: Essential component of cellular function and growth, energy production, and metabolism of fats and drugs

Dietary sources: Eggs, organ meats, lean meats, milk, green vegetables, fortified cereals and grains Riboflavin is essential to energy production, cellular growth, and metabolism.2

The takeaway: Its use as migraine prophylaxis has limited data,97 but there is otherwise no evidence to support health benefits of riboflavin supplementation.

Vitamin B3

Vitamers: Nicotinic acid (niacin); nicotinamide (niacinamide); nicotinamide riboside

Physiologic role: Converted to nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), which is widely required in most cellular metabolic redox processes. Crucial to the synthesis and metabolism of carbohydrates, fatty acids, and proteins

Dietary sources: Poultry, beef, fish, nuts, legumes, grains. (Tryptophan can also be converted to NAD.)

Niacin is readily converted to NAD, an essential coenzyme for multiple catalytic processes in the body. While niacin at doses more than 100 times the recommended dietary allowance (RDA; 1-3 g/d) has been extensively studied for its role in dyslipidemias,2 pharmacologic dosing is beyond the scope of this article.

The takeaway: There is no evidence supporting a clinical benefit from niacin supplementation.

Vitamin B5

Vitamers: Pantothenic acid; pantethine

Physiologic role: Required for synthesis of coenzyme A (CoA) and acyl carrier protein, both essential in fatty acid and other anabolic/catabolic processes

Dietary sources: Almost all plant/animal-based foods. Richest sources include beef, chicken, organ meats, whole grains, and some vegetables

Pantothenic acid is essential to multiple metabolic processes and readily available in sufficient amounts in most foods.2 Although limited RCT data suggest pantethine may improve lipid measures,12,98,99 pantothenic acid itself does not seem to share this effect.

The takeaway: There is no data that supplementation of any form of vitamin B5 has any patient-oriented clinical benefits.

Continue to: Vitamin B6...

 

 

Vitamin B6

Vitamers: Pyridoxine; pyridoxamine; pyridoxal

Physiologic role: Widely involved coenzyme for cognitive development, neurotransmitter biosynthesis, homocysteine and glucose metabolism, immune function, and hemoglobin formation

Dietary sources: Fish, organ meats, potatoes/starchy vegetables, fruit (other than citrus), and fortified cereals

Pyridoxine is required for numerous enzymatic processes in the body, including biosynthesis of neurotransmitters and homeostasis of the amino acid homocysteine.2 While overt deficiency is rare, marginal insufficiency may become clinically apparent and has been associated with malabsorption, malignancies, pregnancy, heart disease, alcoholism, and use of drugs such as isoniazid, hydralazine, and levodopa/carbidopa.2 Vitamin B6 supplementation is known to decrease plasma homocysteine levels, a theorized intermediary for cardiovascular disease; however, studies have failed to consistently demonstrate patient-oriented benefits.100-102 While observational data has suggested a correlation between vitamin B6 status and cancer risk, RCTs have not supported benefit from supplementation.14-16 Potential effects of vitamin B6 supplementation on cognitive function have also been studied without observed benefit.17,18

The takeaway: Vitamin B6 is recommended as a potential treatment option for nausea in pregnancy.19 Otherwise, vitamin B6 is readily available in food, deficiency is rare, and no patient-oriented evidence supports supplementation in the general population.

Vitamin B7

Vitamers: Biotin

Physiologic role: Cofactor in the metabolism of fatty acids, glucose, and amino acids. Also plays key role in histone modifications, gene regulation, and cell signaling

Dietary sources: Widely available; most prevalent in organ meats, fish, meat, seeds, nuts, and vegetables (eg, sweet potatoes). Whole cooked eggs are a major source, but raw eggs contain avidin, which blocks absorption

Biotin serves a key role in metabolism, gene regulation, and cell signaling.2 Biotin is known to interfere with laboratory assays— including cardiac enzymes, thyroid studies, and hormone studies—at normal supplementation doses, resulting in both false-positive and false-negative results.103

The takeaway: No evidence supports the health benefits of biotin supplementation.

Vitamin B9

Vitamers: Folates; folic acid

Physiologic role: Functions as a coenzyme in the synthesis of DNA/RNA and metabolism of amino acids

Dietary sources: Highest content in spinach, liver, asparagus, and brussels sprouts. Generally found in green leafy vegetables, fruits, nuts, beans, peas, seafood, eggs, dairy, meat, poultry, grains, and fortified cereals.

Continue to: Vitamin B12...

 

 

Vitamin B12

Vitamers: Cyanocobalamin; hydroxocobalamin; methylcobalamin; adenosylcobalamin

Physiologic role: Required for red blood cell formation, neurologic function, and DNA synthesis

Dietary sources: Only in animal products: fish, poultry, meat, eggs, and milk/dairy products. Not present in plant foods. Fortified cereals, nutritional yeast are sources for vegans/vegetarians.

Given their linked physiologic roles, vitamins B9 and B12 are frequently studied together. Folate and cobalamins play key roles in nucleic acid synthesis and amino acid metabolism, with their most clinically significant role in hematopoiesis. Vitamin B12 is also essential to normal neurologic function.2

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends preconceptual folate supplementation of 0.4-0.8 mg/d in women of childbearing age to decrease the risk of fetal neural tube defects (grade A).21 This is supported by high-quality RCT evidence demonstrating a protective effect of daily folate supplementation in preventing neural tube defects.22 Folate supplementation’s effect on other fetal birth defects has been investigated, but no benefit has been demonstrated. While observational studies have suggested an inverse relationship with folate status and fetal autism spectrum disorder,23-25 the RCT data is mixed.26

A potential role for folate in cancer prevention has been extensively investigated. An expert panel of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded that folate supplementation does not reduce cancer risk in people with adequate baseline folate status based on high-quality meta-analysis data.27,104 Conversely, long-term follow-up from RCTs demonstrated an increased risk of colorectal adenomas and cancers,28,29 leading the NTP panel to conclude there is sufficient concern for adverse effects of folate on cancer growth to justify further research.104

While observational studies have found a correlation of increased risk for disease with lower antioxidant serum levels, RCTs have not demonstrated a reduction in disease risk with supplementation.

Given folate and vitamin B12’s homocysteine-reducing effects, it has been theorized that supplementation may protect from cardiovascular disease. However, despite extensive research, there remains no consistent patient-oriented outcomes data to support such a benefit.31,32,105

The evidence is mixed but generally has found no benefit of folate or vitamin B12 supplementation on cognitive function.18,33-35 Finally, RCT data has failed to demonstrate a reduction in fracture risk with supplementation.36,106

The takeaway: High-quality RCT evidence demonstrates a protective effect of preconceptual daily folate supplementation in preventing neural tube defects.22 The USPSTF recommends preconceptual folate supplementation of 0.4-0.8 mg/d in women of childbearing age to decrease the risk of fetal neural tube defects.

Antioxidants

In addition to their individual roles, vitamins A, E, and C are antioxidants, functioning to protect cells from oxidative damage by free radical species.2 Due to this shared role, these vitamins are commonly studied together. Antioxidants are hypothesized to protect from various diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, dementia, autoimmune disorders, depression, cataracts, and age-related vision decline.2,37,107-112

Though observational studies have found a correlation of increased risk for disease with lower antioxidant serum levels, RCTs have not demonstrated a reduction in disease risk with supplementation and, in some cases, have found an increased risk of mortality. While several studies have found potential benefit of antioxidant use in reducing colon and breast cancer risk,38,113-115 vitamins A and E have been associated with increased risk of lung and prostate cancer, respectively.47,110 Cardiovascular disease and antioxidant vitamin supplementation has similar inconsistent data, ranging from slight benefit to harm.2,116 After a large Cochrane review in 2012 found a significant increase in all-cause mortality associated with vitamin E and beta-carotene,117 the USPSTF made a specific recommendation against supplementation of these vitamins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer (grade D).118 Given its limited risk for harm, vitamin C was excluded from this recommendation.

Continue to: Vitamin A...

 

 

Vitamin A

Vitamers: Retinol; retinal; retinyl esters; provitamin A carotenoids (beta-carotene, alpha-carotene, beta-cryptoxanthin)

Physiologic role: Essential for vision and corneal development. Also involved in general cell differentiation and immune function

Dietary sources: Liver, fish oil, dairy, and fortified cereals. Provitamin A sources: leafy green vegetables, orange/yellow vegetables, tomato products, fruits, and vegetable oils Retinoids and their precursors, carotenoids, serve a critical function in vision, as well as regulating cell differentiation and proliferation throughout the body.2 While evidence suggests mortality benefit of supplementation in populations at risk of deficiency,45 wide-ranging studies have found either inconsistent benefit or outright harms in the developed world.

The takeaway: Given the USPSTF grade “D” recommendation and concern for potential harms, supplementation is not recommended in healthy patients without risk factors for deficiency.2

 

Vitamin E

Vitamers: Tocopherols (alpha-, beta-, gamma-, delta-); tocotrienol (alpha-, beta-, gamma-, delta-)

Physiologic role: Antioxidant; protects polyunsaturated fats from free radical oxidative damage. Involved in immune function, cell signaling, and regulation of gene expression

Dietary sources: Nuts, seeds, vegetable oil, green leafy vegetables, and fortified cereals

Vitamin E is the collective name of 8 compounds; alpha-tocopherol is the physiologically active form. Vitamin E is involved with cell proliferation as well as endothelial and platelet function.2

The takeaway: Vitamin E supplementation’s effects on cancer, cardiovascular disease, ophthalmologic disorders, and cognition have been investigated; data is either lacking to support a benefit or demonstrates harms as outlined above. Given this and the USPSTF grade “D” recommendation, supplementation is not recommended in healthy patients.2

Vitamin C

Vitamers: Ascorbic acid

Physiologic role: Required for synthesis of collagen, L-carnitine, and some neurotransmitters. Also involved in protein metabolism

Dietary sources: Primarily in fruits and vegetables: citrus, tomato, potatoes, red/green peppers, kiwi fruit, broccoli, strawberries, brussels sprouts, cantaloupe, and fortified cereals

Vitamin C supplementation at the onset of illness does not seem to have benefit.

Ascorbic acid is a required cofactor for biosynthesis of collagen, neurotransmitters, and protein metabolism.2 In addition to the shared hypothesized benefits of antioxidants, vitamin C supplementation has undergone extensive research into its potential role in augmenting the immune system and preventing the common cold. Systematic reviews have found daily vitamin C supplementation of at least 200 mg did not affect the incidence of the common cold in healthy adults but may shorten duration and could be of benefit in those exposed to extreme physical exercise or cold.48 Vitamin C supplementation at the onset of illness does not seem to have benefit.48 Data is insufficient to draw conclusions about a potential effect on pneumonia incidence or severity.119,120

The takeaway: Overall, data remain inconclusive as to potential benefits of vitamin C supplementation, although risks of potential harms are likely low.

Continue to: Vitamin D...

 

 

Vitamin D

Vitamers: Cholecalciferol (D3); ergocalciferol (D2)

Physiologic role: Hydroxylation in liver and kidney required to activate. Promotes dietary calcium absorption, enables normal bone mineralization. Also involved in modulation of cell growth, and neuromuscular and immune function

Dietary sources: Few natural dietary sources, which include fatty fish, fish liver oils; small amount in beef liver, cheese, egg yolks. Primary sources include fortified milk and endogenous synthesis in skin with UV exposure
Calciferol is a fat-soluble vitamin required for calcium and bone homeostasis. It is not naturally available in many foods but is primarily produced endogenously in the skin with ultraviolet light exposure.2

The AAP recommends supplementing exclusively breastfed infants with 400 IU/d of vitamin D to prevent rickets.

Bone density and fracture risk reduction are the most often cited benefits of vitamin D supplementation, but this has not been demonstrated consistently in RCTs. Multiple systematic reviews showing inconsistent benefit of vitamin D (with or without calcium) on fracture risk led the USPSTF to conclude that there is insufficient evidence (grade I) to issue a recommendation on vitamin D and calcium supplementation for primary prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women.49-51 Despite some initial evidence suggesting a benefit of vitamin D supplementation on falls reduction, 3 recent systematic reviews did not demonstrate this in community-dwelling elders,54-56 although a separate Cochrane review did suggest a reduction in rate of falls among institutionalized elders.57

The takeaway: Given these findings, the USPSTF has recommended against (grade D) vitamin D supplementation to prevent falls in community-dwelling elders.55

Beyond falls. While the vitamin D receptor is expressed throughout the body and observational studies have suggested a correlation between vitamin D status and many outcomes, extensive RCT data has generally failed to demonstrate extraskeletal benefits from supplementation. Meta-analysis data have demonstrated potential reductions in acute respiratory infection rates and asthma exacerbations with vitamin D supplementation. There is also limited evidence suggesting a reduction in preeclampsia and low-birthweight infant risk with vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy. However, several large meta-analyses and systematic reviews have investigated vitamin D supplementation’s effect on all-cause mortality and found no consistent data to support an association.41,58-62

Multiple systematic reviews have investigated and found high-quality evidence demonstrating no association between vitamin D supplementation and cancer41,63-66,121 or cardiovascular disease risk.41,70,71 There is high-quality data showing no benefit of vitamin D supplementation for multiple additional diseases, including diabetes, cognitive decline, depression, pain, obesity, and liver disease.43,72-75,85-90,122

The takeaway: Due to poor availability in breastmilk, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends supplementing exclusively breastfed infants with 400 IU/d of vitamin D to prevent rickets.123 RCT data support high-dose supplementation of lactating women (6400 IU/d) as an alternative strategy to supplementation of the infant.124 The AAP recommends that all nonbreastfeeding infants and older children ingesting < 1000 mL/d of vitamin D–fortified formula or milk should also be supplemented with 400 IU/d of vitamin D.123 Despite these universal recommendations for supplementation, evidence is mixed on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on bone health in children.52,53

Although concerns about vitamin D supplementation and increased risk of urolithiasis and hypercalcemia have been raised,51,62,121 systematic reviews have not demonstrated significant, clinically relevant risks, even with high-dose supplementation (> 2800 IU/d).125,126

Vitamin K

Vitamers: Phylloquinone (K1); menaquinones (K2)

Physiologic role: Coenzyme for synthesis of proteins involved in hemostasis and bone metabolism

Dietary sources: Phylloquinone is found in green leafy vegetables, vegetable oils, some fruits, meat, dairy, and eggs. Menaquinone is produced by gut bacteria and present in fermented foods

Vitamin K includes 2 groups of similar compounds: phylloquinone and menaquinones. Unlike other fat-soluble vitamins, vitamin K is rapidly metabolized and has low tissue storage.2

Children taking multivitamins were often found to have excess levels of potentially harmful nutrients, such as retinol, zinc, and folic acid.

Administration of vitamin K 0.5 to 1 mg intramuscularly (IM) to newborns is standard of care for the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). This is supported by RCT data demonstrating a reduction in classic VKDB (occurring within 7 days)91 and epidemiologic data from various countries showing a reduction in late-onset VKDB with vitamin K prophylaxis programs.127 Oral dosing appears to reduce the risk of VKDB in the setting of parental refusal but is less effective than IM dosing.128,129

Vitamin K’s effects on bone density and fracture risk have also been investigated. Systematic reviews have demonstrated a reduction in fracture risk with vitamin K supplementation,92,93 and European and Asian regulatory bodies have recognized a potential benefit on bone health.2 The FDA considers the evidence insufficient at this time to support such a claim.2 Higher dietary vitamin K consumption has been associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease in observational studies94 and supplementation was associated with improved disease measures,130 but no patient-oriented outcomes have been demonstrated.131

The takeaway: The administration of vitamin K 0.5 to 1 mg intramuscularly (IM) to newborns is standard of care for the prevention of VKDB. Vitamin K may lead to a reduction in fracture risk, but the FDA considers the evidence insufficient. Vitamin K’s potential link to a lowered risk of cardiovascular disease has not been demonstrated with patient-oriented outcomes. Vitamin K has low potential for toxicity, although its interaction with vitamin K antagonists (ie, warfarin) is clinically relevant.

Multivitamins

Multivitamins are often defined as a supplement containing 3 or more vitamins and minerals but without herbs, hormones, or drugs.132 Many multivitamins do contain additional substances, and some include levels of vitamins that exceed the RDA or even the established tolerable upper intake level.133

Safe medication storage should be practiced, as multivitamins with iron are a leading cause of poisoning in children.

A 2013 systematic review found limited evidence to support any benefit from multivitamin supplementation.41 Two included RCTs demonstrated a narrowly significant decrease in cancer rates among men, but saw no effect in women or the combined population.134,135 This benefit appears to disappear at 5 years of follow-up.136 RCT data have shown no benefit of multivitamin use on cognitive function,95 and high-quality data suggest there is no effect on all-cause mortality.137 Given this lack of supporting evidence, the USPSTF has concluded that there is insufficient evidence (grade I) to recommend vitamin supplementation in general to prevent cardiovascular disease or cancer.41

The use of prenatal multivitamins is generally recommended in the pregnancy and preconception period and has been associated with reduced risk of autism spectrum disorders, pediatric cancer rates, small-for-gestational-age infants, and multiple birth defects in offspring; however, studies have not examined if this benefit exceeds that of folate supplementation alone.138-140 AAP does not recommend multivitamins for children with a well-balanced diet.141 Of concern, children taking multivitamins were often found to have excess levels of potentially harmful nutrients such as retinol, zinc, and folic acid.142

The takeaway: There is limited evidence to support any benefit from multivitamin supplementation. Prenatal multivitamins are generally recommended in the pregnancy and preconception period. Overall, the risks of multivitamins are minimal, although that risk is dependent on the multivitamin’s constituent components.143 Components such as vitamin K may interact with a patient’s medications, and multivitamins have been shown to reduce the circulating levels of antiretrovirals.144 Specifically, multivitamins with iron should be avoided in men and postmenopausal women, and safe medication storage should be practiced as multivitamins with iron are a leading cause of poisoning in children.2
 

Summary

Vitamin supplementation in the developed world remains common despite a paucity of RCT data supporting it. Supplementation of folate in women planning to conceive, vitamin D in breastfeeding infants, and vitamin K in newborns are well supported by clinical evidence. Otherwise, there is limited evidence supporting clinically significant benefit from supplementation in healthy patients with well-balanced diets—and in the case of vitamins A and E, there may be outright harms.

Since their discovery in the early 1900s as the treatment for life-threatening deficiency syndromes, vitamins have been touted as panaceas for numerous ailments. While observational data have suggested potential correlations between vitamin status and every imaginable disease, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have generally failed to find benefits from supplementation. Despite this lack of proven efficacy, more than half of older adults reported taking vitamins regularly.1

While most clinicians consider vitamins to be, at worst, expensive placebos, the potential for harm and dangerous interactions exists. Unlike pharmaceuticals, vitamins are generally unregulated, and the true content of many dietary supplements is often difficult to elucidate. Understanding the physiologic role, foundational evidence, and specific indications for the various vitamins is key to providing the best recommendations to patients.

Vitamins are essential organic nutrients, required in small quantities for normal metabolism. Since they are not synthesized endogenously, they must be ingested via food intake. In the developed world, vitamin deficiency syndromes are rare, thanks to sufficiently balanced diets and availability of fortified foods. The focus of this article will be on vitamin supplementation in healthy patients with well-balanced diets. TABLE E12 lists the 13 recognized vitamins, their recommended dietary allowances, and any known toxicity risks. TABLE 22 outlines elements of the history to consider when evaluating for deficiency. A summary of the most clinically significant evidence for vitamin supplementation follows; a more comprehensive review can be found in TABLE 3.3-96

 

B Complex vitamins

Vitamin B1

 

Vitamers: Thiamine (thiamin)

Physiologic role: Critical in carbohydrate and amino-acid catabolism and energy metabolism

Dietary sources: Whole grains, meat, fish, fortified cereals, and breads

Thiamine serves as an essential cofactor in energy metabolism.2 Thiamine deficiency is responsible for beriberi syndrome (rare in the developed world) and Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, the latter of which is a relatively common complication of chronic alcohol dependence. Although thiamine’s administration in these conditions can be curative, evidence is lacking to support its use preventively in patients with alcoholism.3 Thiamine has additionally been theorized to play a role in cardiac and cognitive function, but RCT data has not shown consistent patient-oriented benefits.4,5

The takeaway: Given the lack of evidence, supplementation in the general population is not recommended.

Continue to: Vitamin B2...

 

 

Vitamin B2

Vitamers: Riboflavin

Physiologic role: Essential component of cellular function and growth, energy production, and metabolism of fats and drugs

Dietary sources: Eggs, organ meats, lean meats, milk, green vegetables, fortified cereals and grains Riboflavin is essential to energy production, cellular growth, and metabolism.2

The takeaway: Its use as migraine prophylaxis has limited data,97 but there is otherwise no evidence to support health benefits of riboflavin supplementation.

Vitamin B3

Vitamers: Nicotinic acid (niacin); nicotinamide (niacinamide); nicotinamide riboside

Physiologic role: Converted to nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), which is widely required in most cellular metabolic redox processes. Crucial to the synthesis and metabolism of carbohydrates, fatty acids, and proteins

Dietary sources: Poultry, beef, fish, nuts, legumes, grains. (Tryptophan can also be converted to NAD.)

Niacin is readily converted to NAD, an essential coenzyme for multiple catalytic processes in the body. While niacin at doses more than 100 times the recommended dietary allowance (RDA; 1-3 g/d) has been extensively studied for its role in dyslipidemias,2 pharmacologic dosing is beyond the scope of this article.

The takeaway: There is no evidence supporting a clinical benefit from niacin supplementation.

Vitamin B5

Vitamers: Pantothenic acid; pantethine

Physiologic role: Required for synthesis of coenzyme A (CoA) and acyl carrier protein, both essential in fatty acid and other anabolic/catabolic processes

Dietary sources: Almost all plant/animal-based foods. Richest sources include beef, chicken, organ meats, whole grains, and some vegetables

Pantothenic acid is essential to multiple metabolic processes and readily available in sufficient amounts in most foods.2 Although limited RCT data suggest pantethine may improve lipid measures,12,98,99 pantothenic acid itself does not seem to share this effect.

The takeaway: There is no data that supplementation of any form of vitamin B5 has any patient-oriented clinical benefits.

Continue to: Vitamin B6...

 

 

Vitamin B6

Vitamers: Pyridoxine; pyridoxamine; pyridoxal

Physiologic role: Widely involved coenzyme for cognitive development, neurotransmitter biosynthesis, homocysteine and glucose metabolism, immune function, and hemoglobin formation

Dietary sources: Fish, organ meats, potatoes/starchy vegetables, fruit (other than citrus), and fortified cereals

Pyridoxine is required for numerous enzymatic processes in the body, including biosynthesis of neurotransmitters and homeostasis of the amino acid homocysteine.2 While overt deficiency is rare, marginal insufficiency may become clinically apparent and has been associated with malabsorption, malignancies, pregnancy, heart disease, alcoholism, and use of drugs such as isoniazid, hydralazine, and levodopa/carbidopa.2 Vitamin B6 supplementation is known to decrease plasma homocysteine levels, a theorized intermediary for cardiovascular disease; however, studies have failed to consistently demonstrate patient-oriented benefits.100-102 While observational data has suggested a correlation between vitamin B6 status and cancer risk, RCTs have not supported benefit from supplementation.14-16 Potential effects of vitamin B6 supplementation on cognitive function have also been studied without observed benefit.17,18

The takeaway: Vitamin B6 is recommended as a potential treatment option for nausea in pregnancy.19 Otherwise, vitamin B6 is readily available in food, deficiency is rare, and no patient-oriented evidence supports supplementation in the general population.

Vitamin B7

Vitamers: Biotin

Physiologic role: Cofactor in the metabolism of fatty acids, glucose, and amino acids. Also plays key role in histone modifications, gene regulation, and cell signaling

Dietary sources: Widely available; most prevalent in organ meats, fish, meat, seeds, nuts, and vegetables (eg, sweet potatoes). Whole cooked eggs are a major source, but raw eggs contain avidin, which blocks absorption

Biotin serves a key role in metabolism, gene regulation, and cell signaling.2 Biotin is known to interfere with laboratory assays— including cardiac enzymes, thyroid studies, and hormone studies—at normal supplementation doses, resulting in both false-positive and false-negative results.103

The takeaway: No evidence supports the health benefits of biotin supplementation.

Vitamin B9

Vitamers: Folates; folic acid

Physiologic role: Functions as a coenzyme in the synthesis of DNA/RNA and metabolism of amino acids

Dietary sources: Highest content in spinach, liver, asparagus, and brussels sprouts. Generally found in green leafy vegetables, fruits, nuts, beans, peas, seafood, eggs, dairy, meat, poultry, grains, and fortified cereals.

Continue to: Vitamin B12...

 

 

Vitamin B12

Vitamers: Cyanocobalamin; hydroxocobalamin; methylcobalamin; adenosylcobalamin

Physiologic role: Required for red blood cell formation, neurologic function, and DNA synthesis

Dietary sources: Only in animal products: fish, poultry, meat, eggs, and milk/dairy products. Not present in plant foods. Fortified cereals, nutritional yeast are sources for vegans/vegetarians.

Given their linked physiologic roles, vitamins B9 and B12 are frequently studied together. Folate and cobalamins play key roles in nucleic acid synthesis and amino acid metabolism, with their most clinically significant role in hematopoiesis. Vitamin B12 is also essential to normal neurologic function.2

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends preconceptual folate supplementation of 0.4-0.8 mg/d in women of childbearing age to decrease the risk of fetal neural tube defects (grade A).21 This is supported by high-quality RCT evidence demonstrating a protective effect of daily folate supplementation in preventing neural tube defects.22 Folate supplementation’s effect on other fetal birth defects has been investigated, but no benefit has been demonstrated. While observational studies have suggested an inverse relationship with folate status and fetal autism spectrum disorder,23-25 the RCT data is mixed.26

A potential role for folate in cancer prevention has been extensively investigated. An expert panel of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded that folate supplementation does not reduce cancer risk in people with adequate baseline folate status based on high-quality meta-analysis data.27,104 Conversely, long-term follow-up from RCTs demonstrated an increased risk of colorectal adenomas and cancers,28,29 leading the NTP panel to conclude there is sufficient concern for adverse effects of folate on cancer growth to justify further research.104

While observational studies have found a correlation of increased risk for disease with lower antioxidant serum levels, RCTs have not demonstrated a reduction in disease risk with supplementation.

Given folate and vitamin B12’s homocysteine-reducing effects, it has been theorized that supplementation may protect from cardiovascular disease. However, despite extensive research, there remains no consistent patient-oriented outcomes data to support such a benefit.31,32,105

The evidence is mixed but generally has found no benefit of folate or vitamin B12 supplementation on cognitive function.18,33-35 Finally, RCT data has failed to demonstrate a reduction in fracture risk with supplementation.36,106

The takeaway: High-quality RCT evidence demonstrates a protective effect of preconceptual daily folate supplementation in preventing neural tube defects.22 The USPSTF recommends preconceptual folate supplementation of 0.4-0.8 mg/d in women of childbearing age to decrease the risk of fetal neural tube defects.

Antioxidants

In addition to their individual roles, vitamins A, E, and C are antioxidants, functioning to protect cells from oxidative damage by free radical species.2 Due to this shared role, these vitamins are commonly studied together. Antioxidants are hypothesized to protect from various diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, dementia, autoimmune disorders, depression, cataracts, and age-related vision decline.2,37,107-112

Though observational studies have found a correlation of increased risk for disease with lower antioxidant serum levels, RCTs have not demonstrated a reduction in disease risk with supplementation and, in some cases, have found an increased risk of mortality. While several studies have found potential benefit of antioxidant use in reducing colon and breast cancer risk,38,113-115 vitamins A and E have been associated with increased risk of lung and prostate cancer, respectively.47,110 Cardiovascular disease and antioxidant vitamin supplementation has similar inconsistent data, ranging from slight benefit to harm.2,116 After a large Cochrane review in 2012 found a significant increase in all-cause mortality associated with vitamin E and beta-carotene,117 the USPSTF made a specific recommendation against supplementation of these vitamins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer (grade D).118 Given its limited risk for harm, vitamin C was excluded from this recommendation.

Continue to: Vitamin A...

 

 

Vitamin A

Vitamers: Retinol; retinal; retinyl esters; provitamin A carotenoids (beta-carotene, alpha-carotene, beta-cryptoxanthin)

Physiologic role: Essential for vision and corneal development. Also involved in general cell differentiation and immune function

Dietary sources: Liver, fish oil, dairy, and fortified cereals. Provitamin A sources: leafy green vegetables, orange/yellow vegetables, tomato products, fruits, and vegetable oils Retinoids and their precursors, carotenoids, serve a critical function in vision, as well as regulating cell differentiation and proliferation throughout the body.2 While evidence suggests mortality benefit of supplementation in populations at risk of deficiency,45 wide-ranging studies have found either inconsistent benefit or outright harms in the developed world.

The takeaway: Given the USPSTF grade “D” recommendation and concern for potential harms, supplementation is not recommended in healthy patients without risk factors for deficiency.2

 

Vitamin E

Vitamers: Tocopherols (alpha-, beta-, gamma-, delta-); tocotrienol (alpha-, beta-, gamma-, delta-)

Physiologic role: Antioxidant; protects polyunsaturated fats from free radical oxidative damage. Involved in immune function, cell signaling, and regulation of gene expression

Dietary sources: Nuts, seeds, vegetable oil, green leafy vegetables, and fortified cereals

Vitamin E is the collective name of 8 compounds; alpha-tocopherol is the physiologically active form. Vitamin E is involved with cell proliferation as well as endothelial and platelet function.2

The takeaway: Vitamin E supplementation’s effects on cancer, cardiovascular disease, ophthalmologic disorders, and cognition have been investigated; data is either lacking to support a benefit or demonstrates harms as outlined above. Given this and the USPSTF grade “D” recommendation, supplementation is not recommended in healthy patients.2

Vitamin C

Vitamers: Ascorbic acid

Physiologic role: Required for synthesis of collagen, L-carnitine, and some neurotransmitters. Also involved in protein metabolism

Dietary sources: Primarily in fruits and vegetables: citrus, tomato, potatoes, red/green peppers, kiwi fruit, broccoli, strawberries, brussels sprouts, cantaloupe, and fortified cereals

Vitamin C supplementation at the onset of illness does not seem to have benefit.

Ascorbic acid is a required cofactor for biosynthesis of collagen, neurotransmitters, and protein metabolism.2 In addition to the shared hypothesized benefits of antioxidants, vitamin C supplementation has undergone extensive research into its potential role in augmenting the immune system and preventing the common cold. Systematic reviews have found daily vitamin C supplementation of at least 200 mg did not affect the incidence of the common cold in healthy adults but may shorten duration and could be of benefit in those exposed to extreme physical exercise or cold.48 Vitamin C supplementation at the onset of illness does not seem to have benefit.48 Data is insufficient to draw conclusions about a potential effect on pneumonia incidence or severity.119,120

The takeaway: Overall, data remain inconclusive as to potential benefits of vitamin C supplementation, although risks of potential harms are likely low.

Continue to: Vitamin D...

 

 

Vitamin D

Vitamers: Cholecalciferol (D3); ergocalciferol (D2)

Physiologic role: Hydroxylation in liver and kidney required to activate. Promotes dietary calcium absorption, enables normal bone mineralization. Also involved in modulation of cell growth, and neuromuscular and immune function

Dietary sources: Few natural dietary sources, which include fatty fish, fish liver oils; small amount in beef liver, cheese, egg yolks. Primary sources include fortified milk and endogenous synthesis in skin with UV exposure
Calciferol is a fat-soluble vitamin required for calcium and bone homeostasis. It is not naturally available in many foods but is primarily produced endogenously in the skin with ultraviolet light exposure.2

The AAP recommends supplementing exclusively breastfed infants with 400 IU/d of vitamin D to prevent rickets.

Bone density and fracture risk reduction are the most often cited benefits of vitamin D supplementation, but this has not been demonstrated consistently in RCTs. Multiple systematic reviews showing inconsistent benefit of vitamin D (with or without calcium) on fracture risk led the USPSTF to conclude that there is insufficient evidence (grade I) to issue a recommendation on vitamin D and calcium supplementation for primary prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women.49-51 Despite some initial evidence suggesting a benefit of vitamin D supplementation on falls reduction, 3 recent systematic reviews did not demonstrate this in community-dwelling elders,54-56 although a separate Cochrane review did suggest a reduction in rate of falls among institutionalized elders.57

The takeaway: Given these findings, the USPSTF has recommended against (grade D) vitamin D supplementation to prevent falls in community-dwelling elders.55

Beyond falls. While the vitamin D receptor is expressed throughout the body and observational studies have suggested a correlation between vitamin D status and many outcomes, extensive RCT data has generally failed to demonstrate extraskeletal benefits from supplementation. Meta-analysis data have demonstrated potential reductions in acute respiratory infection rates and asthma exacerbations with vitamin D supplementation. There is also limited evidence suggesting a reduction in preeclampsia and low-birthweight infant risk with vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy. However, several large meta-analyses and systematic reviews have investigated vitamin D supplementation’s effect on all-cause mortality and found no consistent data to support an association.41,58-62

Multiple systematic reviews have investigated and found high-quality evidence demonstrating no association between vitamin D supplementation and cancer41,63-66,121 or cardiovascular disease risk.41,70,71 There is high-quality data showing no benefit of vitamin D supplementation for multiple additional diseases, including diabetes, cognitive decline, depression, pain, obesity, and liver disease.43,72-75,85-90,122

The takeaway: Due to poor availability in breastmilk, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends supplementing exclusively breastfed infants with 400 IU/d of vitamin D to prevent rickets.123 RCT data support high-dose supplementation of lactating women (6400 IU/d) as an alternative strategy to supplementation of the infant.124 The AAP recommends that all nonbreastfeeding infants and older children ingesting < 1000 mL/d of vitamin D–fortified formula or milk should also be supplemented with 400 IU/d of vitamin D.123 Despite these universal recommendations for supplementation, evidence is mixed on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on bone health in children.52,53

Although concerns about vitamin D supplementation and increased risk of urolithiasis and hypercalcemia have been raised,51,62,121 systematic reviews have not demonstrated significant, clinically relevant risks, even with high-dose supplementation (> 2800 IU/d).125,126

Vitamin K

Vitamers: Phylloquinone (K1); menaquinones (K2)

Physiologic role: Coenzyme for synthesis of proteins involved in hemostasis and bone metabolism

Dietary sources: Phylloquinone is found in green leafy vegetables, vegetable oils, some fruits, meat, dairy, and eggs. Menaquinone is produced by gut bacteria and present in fermented foods

Vitamin K includes 2 groups of similar compounds: phylloquinone and menaquinones. Unlike other fat-soluble vitamins, vitamin K is rapidly metabolized and has low tissue storage.2

Children taking multivitamins were often found to have excess levels of potentially harmful nutrients, such as retinol, zinc, and folic acid.

Administration of vitamin K 0.5 to 1 mg intramuscularly (IM) to newborns is standard of care for the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). This is supported by RCT data demonstrating a reduction in classic VKDB (occurring within 7 days)91 and epidemiologic data from various countries showing a reduction in late-onset VKDB with vitamin K prophylaxis programs.127 Oral dosing appears to reduce the risk of VKDB in the setting of parental refusal but is less effective than IM dosing.128,129

Vitamin K’s effects on bone density and fracture risk have also been investigated. Systematic reviews have demonstrated a reduction in fracture risk with vitamin K supplementation,92,93 and European and Asian regulatory bodies have recognized a potential benefit on bone health.2 The FDA considers the evidence insufficient at this time to support such a claim.2 Higher dietary vitamin K consumption has been associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease in observational studies94 and supplementation was associated with improved disease measures,130 but no patient-oriented outcomes have been demonstrated.131

The takeaway: The administration of vitamin K 0.5 to 1 mg intramuscularly (IM) to newborns is standard of care for the prevention of VKDB. Vitamin K may lead to a reduction in fracture risk, but the FDA considers the evidence insufficient. Vitamin K’s potential link to a lowered risk of cardiovascular disease has not been demonstrated with patient-oriented outcomes. Vitamin K has low potential for toxicity, although its interaction with vitamin K antagonists (ie, warfarin) is clinically relevant.

Multivitamins

Multivitamins are often defined as a supplement containing 3 or more vitamins and minerals but without herbs, hormones, or drugs.132 Many multivitamins do contain additional substances, and some include levels of vitamins that exceed the RDA or even the established tolerable upper intake level.133

Safe medication storage should be practiced, as multivitamins with iron are a leading cause of poisoning in children.

A 2013 systematic review found limited evidence to support any benefit from multivitamin supplementation.41 Two included RCTs demonstrated a narrowly significant decrease in cancer rates among men, but saw no effect in women or the combined population.134,135 This benefit appears to disappear at 5 years of follow-up.136 RCT data have shown no benefit of multivitamin use on cognitive function,95 and high-quality data suggest there is no effect on all-cause mortality.137 Given this lack of supporting evidence, the USPSTF has concluded that there is insufficient evidence (grade I) to recommend vitamin supplementation in general to prevent cardiovascular disease or cancer.41

The use of prenatal multivitamins is generally recommended in the pregnancy and preconception period and has been associated with reduced risk of autism spectrum disorders, pediatric cancer rates, small-for-gestational-age infants, and multiple birth defects in offspring; however, studies have not examined if this benefit exceeds that of folate supplementation alone.138-140 AAP does not recommend multivitamins for children with a well-balanced diet.141 Of concern, children taking multivitamins were often found to have excess levels of potentially harmful nutrients such as retinol, zinc, and folic acid.142

The takeaway: There is limited evidence to support any benefit from multivitamin supplementation. Prenatal multivitamins are generally recommended in the pregnancy and preconception period. Overall, the risks of multivitamins are minimal, although that risk is dependent on the multivitamin’s constituent components.143 Components such as vitamin K may interact with a patient’s medications, and multivitamins have been shown to reduce the circulating levels of antiretrovirals.144 Specifically, multivitamins with iron should be avoided in men and postmenopausal women, and safe medication storage should be practiced as multivitamins with iron are a leading cause of poisoning in children.2
 

Summary

Vitamin supplementation in the developed world remains common despite a paucity of RCT data supporting it. Supplementation of folate in women planning to conceive, vitamin D in breastfeeding infants, and vitamin K in newborns are well supported by clinical evidence. Otherwise, there is limited evidence supporting clinically significant benefit from supplementation in healthy patients with well-balanced diets—and in the case of vitamins A and E, there may be outright harms.

References


1. Half of Americans take vitamins regularly. Accessed June 16, 2020. https://news.gallup.com/poll/166541/half-americans-vitamins-regularly.aspx

2. National Institutes of Health. Vitamin and mineral supplement fact sheets. Published 2020. Accessed May 26, 2020. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/list-VitaminsMinerals/

3. Day E, Bentham PW, Callaghan R, et al. Thiamine for prevention and treatment of Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome in people who abuse alcohol. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(7):CD004033. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004033.pub3

4. DiNicolantonio JJ, Niazi AK, Lavie CJ, et al. Thiamine supplementation for the treatment of heart failure: a review of the literature. Congest Heart Fail. 2013;19:214-222. doi:10.1111/chf.12037

5. Rodríguez-Martín JL, Qizilbash N, López-Arrieta JM. Thiamine for Alzheimer’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(2):CD001498. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001498

6. Schoenen J, Jacquy J, Lenaerts M. Effectiveness of high-dose riboflavin in migraine prophylaxis. A randomized controlled trial. Neurology. 1998;50:466-470. doi:10.1212/wnl.50.2.466

7. Johansson M, Relton C, Ueland PM, et al. Serum B vitamin levels and risk of lung cancer. JAMA. 2010;303:2377-2385. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.808

8. Kabat GC, Miller AB, Jain M, et al. Dietary intake of selected B vitamins in relation to risk of major cancers in women. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:816-821. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604540

9. Zschäbitz S, Cheng T-YD, Neuhouser ML, et al. B vitamin intakes and incidence of colorectal cancer: results from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97:332-343. doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.034736

10. de Vogel S, Dindore V, van Engeland M, et al. Dietary folate, methionine, riboflavin, and vitamin B-6 and risk of sporadic colorectal cancer. J Nutr. 2008;138:2372-2378. doi:10.3945/jn.108.091157

11. Bassett JK, Hodge AM, English DR, et al. Dietary intake of B vitamins and methionine and risk of lung cancer. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012;66:182-187. doi:10.1038/ejcn.2011.157

12. McRae MP. Treatment of hyperlipoproteinemia with pantethine: a review and analysis of efficacy and tolerability. Nutr Res. 2005; 25:319-333.

13. Saposnik G, Ray JG, Sheridan P, et al; Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation 2 Investigators. Homocysteine-lowering therapy and stroke risk, severity, and disability: additional findings from the HOPE 2 trial. Stroke. 2009;40:1365-1372. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.529503

14. Larsson SC, Orsini N, Wolk A. Vitamin B6 and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 2010;303:1077-1083. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.263

15. Mocellin S, Briarava M, Pilati P. Vitamin B6 and cancer risk: a field synopsis and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109:1-9. doi:10.1093/jnci/djw230

16. Ebbing M, Bønaa KH, Nygård O, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality after treatment with folic acid and vitamin B12. JAMA. 2009;302:2119-2126. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1622

17. Malouf R, Grimley Evans J. The effect of vitamin B6 on cognition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD004393. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004393

18. Balk EM, Raman G, Tatsioni A, et al. Vitamin B6, B12, and folic acid supplementation and cognitive function: a systematic review of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:21-30. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.1.21

19. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. ACOG Practice Bulletin: nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:803-814.

20. Matthews A, Dowswell T, Haas DM, et al. Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(9):CD007575. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007575.pub2

21. US Preventive Services Task Force. Folic acid for the prevention of neural tube defects: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:626-631.

22. De-Regil LM, Peña-Rosas JP, Fernández-Gaxiola AC, et al. Effects and safety of periconceptional oral folate supplementation for preventing birth defects. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(12):CD007950. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007950.pub3

23. Surén P, Roth C, Bresnahan M, et al. Association between maternal use of folic acid supplements and risk of autism spectrum disorders in children. JAMA. 2013;309:570-577. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.155925

24. Schmidt RJ, Tancredi DJ, Ozonoff S, et al. Maternal periconceptional folic acid intake and risk of autism spectrum disorders and developmental delay in the CHARGE (CHildhood Autism Risks from Genetics and Environment) case-control study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96:80-89. doi:10.3945/ajcn.110.004416

25. Levine SZ, Kodesh A, Viktorin A, et al. Association of maternal use of folic acid and multivitamin supplements in the periods before and during pregnancy with the risk of autism spectrum disorder in offspring. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75:176-184. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4050

26. Virk J, Liew Z, Olsen J, et al. Preconceptional and prenatal supplementary folic acid and multivitamin intake and autism spectrum disorders. Autism. 2016;20:710-718. doi:10.1177/1362361315604076

27. Vollset SE, Clarke R, Lewington S, et al. Effects of folic acid supplementation on overall and site-specific cancer incidence during the randomised trials: meta-analyses of data on 50,000 individuals. Lancet. 2013;381:1029-1036. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62001-7

28. Passarelli MN, Barry EL, Rees JR, et al. Folic acid supplementation and risk of colorectal neoplasia during long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019;110:903-911. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqz160

29. Oliai Araghi S, Kiefte-de Jong JC, van Dijk SC, et al. Folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation and the risk of cancer: long-term follow-up of the B vitamins for the Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures (B-PROOF) Trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019;28:275-282. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-1198

30. Wan Ismail WR, Abdul Rahman R, et al. The protective effect of maternal folic acid supplementation on childhood cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies. J Prev Med Public Health. 2019;52:205-213. doi:10.3961/jpmph.19.020

31. Martí-Carvajal AJ, Solà I, Lathyris D, et al. Homocysteine lowering interventions for preventing cardiovascular events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):CD006612. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006612.pub2

32. Wang Y, Jin Y, Wang Y, et al. The effect of folic acid in patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2019;98:e17095. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000017095

33. Malouf R, Areosa Sastre A. Vitamin B12 for cognition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD004326. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004326

34. Malouf R, Grimley Evans J. Folic acid with or without vitamin B12 for the prevention and treatment of healthy elderly and demented people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD004514. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004514.pub2

35. Suh SW, Kim HS, Han JH, et al. Efficacy of vitamins on cognitive function of non-demented people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2020;12(4). doi:10.3390/nu12041168

36. Stone KL, Lui L-Y, Christen WG, et al. Effect of combination folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 supplementation on fracture risk in women: a randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32:2331-2338. doi:10.1002/jbmr.3229

37. Age-related Eye Disease Study Research Group. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E, beta carotene, and zinc for age-related macular degeneration and vision loss: AREDS report no. 8. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1417-1436. doi:10.1001/archopht.119.10.1417

38. Park Y, Spiegelman D, Hunter DJ, et al. Intakes of vitamins A, C, and E and use of multiple vitamin supplements and risk of colon cancer: a pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies. Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21:1745-1757. doi:10.1007/s10552-010-9549-y

39. Koushik A, Wang M, Anderson KE, et al. Intake of vitamins A, C, and E and folate and the risk of ovarian cancer in a pooled analysis of 10 cohort studies. Cancer Causes Control. 2015;26:1315-1327. doi:10.1007/s10552-015-0626-0

40. Lin J, Cook NR, Albert C, et al. Vitamins C and E and beta carotene supplementation and cancer risk: a randomized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:14-23. doi:10.1093/jnci/djn438

41. Fortmann SP, Burda BU, Senger CA, et al. Vitamin and mineral supplements in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer: an updated systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:824-834. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-12-201312170-00729

42. Mathew MC, Ervin A-M, Tao J, et al. Antioxidant vitamin supplementation for preventing and slowing the progression of age-related cataract. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD004567. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004567.pub2

43. Butler M, Nelson VA, Davila H, et al. Over-the-counter supplement interventions to prevent cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and clinical Alzheimer-type dementia: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:52-62. doi:10.7326/M17-1530

44. Crandall C. Vitamin A intake and osteoporosis: a clinical review. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2004;13:939-953. doi:10.1089/jwh.2004.13.939

45. Kranz S, Pimpin L, Fawzi W, et al. Mortality benefits of vitamin A are not affected by varying frequency, total dose, or duration of supplementation. Food Nutr Bull. 2017;38:260-266. doi:10.1177/0379572117696663

46. Miller ER, Pastor-Barriuso R, Dalal D, et al. Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:37-46. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-142-1-200501040-00110

47. Klein EA, Thompson IM, Tangen CM, et al. Vitamin E and the risk of prostate cancer: the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT). JAMA. 2011;306:1549-1556. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1437

48. Hemilä H, Chalker E. Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(1):CD000980. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4

49. Avenell A, Mak JCS, O’Connell D. Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures in post-menopausal women and older men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(4):CD000227. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000227.pub4

50. Zhao J-G, Zeng X-T, Wang J, et al. Association between calcium or vitamin D supplementation and fracture incidence in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2017;318:2466-2482. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19344

51. Kahwati LC, Weber RP, Pan H, et al. Vitamin D, calcium, or combined supplementation for the primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling adults: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319:1600-1612. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21640

52. Winzenberg T, Powell S, Shaw KA, et al. Effects of vitamin D supplementation on bone density in healthy children: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;342:c7254. doi:10.1136/bmj.c7254

53. Winzenberg TM, Powell S, Shaw KA, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for improving bone mineral density in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(10):CD006944. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006944.pub2

54. Bolland MJ, Grey A, Gamble GD, et al. Vitamin D supplementation and falls: a trial sequential meta-analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2:573-580. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70068-3

55. Guirguis-Blake JM, Michael YL, Perdue LA, et al. Interventions to prevent falls in older adults: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319:1705-1716. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21962

56. Gillespie LD, Robertson MC, Gillespie WJ, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(9):CD007146. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007146.pub3

57. Cameron ID, Dyer SM, Panagoda CE, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities and hospitals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;9:CD005465. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005465.pub4

58. Chung M, Balk EM, Brendel M, et al. Vitamin D and calcium: a systematic review of health outcomes. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2009;(183):1-420.

59. Autier P, Gandini S. Vitamin D supplementation and total mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1730-1737. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.16.1730

60. Zhang Y, Fang F, Tang J, et al. Association between vitamin D supplementation and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;366:l4673. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4673

61. Cauley JA, Chlebowski RT, Wactawski-Wende J, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and health outcomes five years after active intervention ended: the Women’s Health Initiative. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013;22:915-929. doi:10.1089/jwh.2013.4270

62. Bjelakovic G, Gluud LL, Nikolova D, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD007470. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007470.pub3

63. Zhou L, Chen B, Sheng L, et al. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of breast cancer: a trial sequential meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;182:1-8. doi:10.1007/s10549-020-05669-4

64. Shahvazi S, Soltani S, Ahmadi SM, et al A. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Horm Metab Res. 2019;51:11-21. doi:10.1055/a-0774-8809

65. Buttigliero C, Monagheddu C, Petroni P, et al. Prognostic role of vitamin d status and efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in cancer patients: a systematic review. Oncologist. 2011;16:1215-1227. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0098

66. Cortés-Jofré M, Rueda J-R, Asenjo-Lobos C, et al. Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;3:CD002141. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002141.pub3

67. Elamin MB, Abu Elnour NO, Elamin KB, et al. Vitamin D and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96:1931-1942. doi:10.1210/jc.2011-0398

68. Pittas AG, Chung M, Trikalinos T, et al. Systematic review: vitamin D and cardiometabolic outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:307-314. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-5-201003020-00009

69. Ford JA, MacLennan GS, Avenell A, et al. Cardiovascular disease and vitamin D supplementation: trial analysis, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100:746-755. doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.082602

70. Beveridge LA, Struthers AD, Khan F, et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis incorporating individual patient data. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:745-754. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0237

71. Qi D, Nie X, Cai J. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on hypertension in non-CKD populations: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2017;227:177-186. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.040

72. Rutjes AW, Denton DA, Di Nisio M, et al. Vitamin and mineral supplementation for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in mid and late life. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;12:CD011906. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011906.pub2

73. Straube S, Derry S, Straube C, et al. Vitamin D for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(5):CD007771. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007771.pub3

74. Zadro JR, Shirley D, Ferreira M, et al. Is vitamin D supplementation effective for low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician. 2018;21:121-145.

75. Wu Z, Malihi Z, Stewart AW, et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician. 2016;19:415-427.

76. Palacios C, Kostiuk LK, Peña-Rosas JP. Vitamin D supplementation for women during pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;7:CD008873. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008873.pub4

77. Bi WG, Nuyt AM, Weiler H, et al. Association between vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy and offspring growth, morbidity, and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172:635-645. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0302

78. Yepes-Nuñez JJ, Brożek JL, Fiocchi A, et al. Vitamin D supplementation in primary allergy prevention: Systematic review of randomized and non-randomized studies. Allergy. 2018;73:37-49. doi:10.1111/all.13241

79. Purswani JM, Gala P, Dwarkanath P, et al. The role of vitamin D in pre-eclampsia: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:231. doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1408-3

80. Khaing W, Vallibhakara SA-O, Tantrakul V, et al. Calcium and vitamin D supplementation for prevention of preeclampsia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2017;9:1141. doi:10.3390/nu9101141

81. Palacios C, De-Regil LM, Lombardo LK, et al. Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy: updated meta-analysis on maternal outcomes. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2016;164:148-155. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.02.008

82. Litonjua AA, Carey VJ, Laranjo N, et al. Six-year follow-up of a trial of antenatal vitamin D for asthma reduction. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:525-533. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1906137

83. Martineau AR, Jolliffe DA, Hooper RL, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583

84. Jolliffe DA, Greenberg L, Hooper RL, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent asthma exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet Respir Med. 2017;5:881-890. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(17)30306-5

85. Chandler PD, Wang L, Zhang X, et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation alone or with calcium on adiposity measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Rev. 2015;73:577-593. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuv012

86. Gowda U, Mutowo MP, Smith BJ, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to reduce depression in adults: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutrition. 2015;31:421-429. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2014.06.017

87. Li G, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, et al. Efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in depression in adults: a systematic review. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99:757-767. doi:10.1210/jc.2013-3450

88. Pittas AG, Dawson-Hughes B, Sheehan P, et al. Vitamin D supplementation and prevention of type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:520-530. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1900906

89. Lee CJ, Iyer G, Liu Y, et al. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies. J Diabetes Complicat. 2017;31:1115-1126. doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2017.04.019

90. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Bjelakovic M, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for chronic liver diseases in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11:CD011564. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011564.pub2

91. Sankar MJ, Chandrasekaran A, Kumar P, et al. Vitamin K prophylaxis for prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding: a systematic review. J Perinatol. 2016;36(suppl 1):S29-S35. doi:10.1038/jp.2016.30

92. Mott A, Bradley T, Wright K, et al. Effect of vitamin K on bone mineral density and fractures in adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30:1543-1559. doi:10.1007/s00198-019-04949-0

93. Cockayne S, Adamson J, Lanham-New S, et al. Vitamin K and the prevention of fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1256-1261. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.12.1256

94. Chen H-G, Sheng L-T, Zhang Y-B, et al. Association of vitamin K with cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nutr. 2019;58:2191-2205. doi:10.1007/s00394-019-01998-3

95. Grodstein F, O’Brien J, Kang JH, et al. Long-term multivitamin supplementation and cognitive function in men: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:806-814. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-12-201312170-00006

96. Christen WG, Glynn RJ, Manson JE, et al. Effects of multivitamin supplement on cataract and age-related macular degeneration in a randomized trial of male physicians. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:525-534. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.09.038

97. Holland S, Silberstein SD, Freitag F, et al. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78:1346-1353. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182535d0c

98. Rumberger JA, Napolitano J, Azumano I, et al. Pantethine, a derivative of vitamin B(5) used as a nutritional supplement, favorably alters low-density lipoprotein cholesterol metabolism in low- to moderate-cardiovascular risk North American subjects: a triple-blinded placebo and diet-controlled investigation. Nutr Res. 2011;31:608-615. doi:10.1016/j.nutres.2011.08.001

99. Evans M, Rumberger JA, Azumano I, et al. Pantethine, a derivative of vitamin B5, favorably alters total, LDL and non-HDL cholesterol in low to moderate cardiovascular risk subjects eligible for statin therapy: a triple-blinded placebo and diet-controlled investigation. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2014;10:89-100. doi:10.2147/VHRM.S57116

100. Ebbing M, Bønaa KH, Arnesen E, et al. Combined analyses and extended follow-up of two randomized controlled homocysteine-lowering B-vitamin trials. J Intern Med. 2010;268:367-382. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02259.x

101. Toole JF, Malinow MR, Chambless LE, et al. Lowering homocysteine in patients with ischemic stroke to prevent recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, and death: the Vitamin Intervention for Stroke Prevention (VISP) randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;291:565-575. doi:10.1001/jama.291.5.565

102. Albert CM, Cook NR, Gaziano JM, et al. Effect of folic acid and B vitamins on risk of cardiovascular events and total mortality among women at high risk for cardiovascular disease: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2008;299:2027-2036. doi:10.1001/jama.299.17.2027

103. FDA. The FDA warns that biotin may interfere with lab tests: FDA Safety Communication. Accessed June 1, 2020. www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/update-fda-warns-biotin-may-interfere-lab-tests-fda-safety-communication

104. National Toxicology Program. Identifying research needs for assessing safe use of high intakes of folic acid. Published 2015. Accessed June 7, 2020. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/folicacid/final_monograph_508.pdf

105. Miller ER, Juraschek S, Pastor-Barriuso R, et al. Meta-analysis of folic acid supplementation trials on risk of cardiovascular disease and risk interaction with baseline homocysteine levels. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:517-527. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.03.064

106. van Wijngaarden JP, Swart KMA, Enneman AW, et al. Effect of daily vitamin B-12 and folic acid supplementation on fracture incidence in elderly individuals with an elevated plasma homocysteine concentration: B-PROOF, a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100:1578-1586. doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.090043

107. Harirchian MH, Mohammadpour Z, Fatehi F, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluating the trend of cytokines to vitamin A supplementation in autoimmune diseases. Clin Nutr. 2019;38:2038-2044. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2018.10.026

108. Liu T, Zhong S, Liao X, et al. A meta-analysis of oxidative stress markers in depression. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0138904. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138904

109. Zeng J, Chen L, Wang Z, et al. Marginal vitamin A deficiency facilitates Alzheimer’s pathogenesis. Acta Neuropathol. 2017;133:967-982. doi:10.1007/s00401-017-1669-y

110. Omenn GS, Goodman GE, Thornquist MD, et al. Effects of a combination of beta carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1150-1155. doi:10.1056/NEJM199605023341802

111. Kanellopoulou A, Riza E, Samoli E, et al. Dietary supplement use after cancer diagnosis in relation to total mortality, cancer mortality and recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Cancer. 2021;73:16-30. doi:10.1080/01635581.2020.1734215

112. Sunkara A, Raizner A. Supplemental vitamins and minerals for cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2019;15:179-184. doi:10.14797/mdcj-15-3-179

113. Zhang S, Hunter DJ, Forman MR, et al. Dietary carotenoids and vitamins A, C, and E and risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:547-556. doi:10.1093/jnci/91.6.547

114. He J, Gu Y, Zhang S. Vitamin A and breast cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18:e1389-e1400. doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2018.07.025

115. Harris HR, Orsini N, Wolk A. Vitamin C and survival among women with breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:1223-1231. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2014.02.013

116. Moser MA, Chun OK. Vitamin C and heart health: a review based on findings from epidemiologic studies. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17. doi:10.3390/ijms17081328

117. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, et al. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(3):CD007176. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007176.pub2

118. US Preventive Services Task Force. Vitamin supplementation to prevent cancer and CVD: preventive medication. Accessed May 21, 2020. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/vitamin-supplementation-to-prevent-cancer-and-cvd-counseling

119. Hemilä H, Louhiala P. Vitamin C for preventing and treating pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(8):CD005532. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005532.pub3

120. Padhani ZA, Moazzam Z, Ashraf A, et al. Vitamin C supplementation for prevention and treatment of pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;4:CD013134. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013134.pub2

121. Bjelakovic G, Gluud LL, Nikolova D, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(6):CD007469. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007469.pub2

122. Autier P, Mullie P, Macacu A, et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on non-skeletal disorders: a systematic review of meta-analyses and randomised trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5:986-1004. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30357-1

123. Wagner CL, Greer FR; American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Breastfeeding, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition. Prevention of rickets and vitamin D deficiency in infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2008;122:1142-1152. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-1862

124. Hollis BW, Wagner CL, Howard CR, et al. Maternal versus infant vitamin D supplementation during lactation: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2015;136:625-634. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-1669

125. Malihi Z, Wu Z, Stewart AW, et al. Hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, and kidney stones in long-term studies of vitamin D supplementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;104:1039-1051. doi:10.3945/ajcn.116.134981

126. Vogiatzi MG, Jacobson-Dickman E, DeBoer MD; Drugs, and Therapeutics Committee of The Pediatric Endocrine Society. Vitamin D supplementation and risk of toxicity in pediatrics: a review of current literature. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99:1132-1141. doi:10.1210/jc.2013-3655

127. Zurynski Y, Grover CJ, Jalaludin B, et al. Vitamin K deficiency bleeding in Australian infants 1993-2017: an Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit study. Arch Dis Child. 2020;105:433-438. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2018-316424

128. Ng E, Loewy AD. Guidelines for vitamin K prophylaxis in newborns: a joint statement of the Canadian Paediatric Society and the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Can Fam Physician. 2018;64:736-739.

129. Araki S, Shirahata A. Vitamin K deficiency bleeding in infancy. Nutrients. 2020;12:780. doi:10.3390/nu12030780

130. Shea MK, Holden RM. Vitamin K status and vascular calcification: evidence from observational and clinical studies. Adv Nutr. 2012;3:158-165. doi:10.3945/an.111.001644

131. Hartley L, Clar C, Ghannam O, et al. Vitamin K for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(9):CD011148. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011148.pub2

132. Huang H-Y, Caballero B, Chang S, et al. Multivitamin/mineral supplements and prevention of chronic disease. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2006;(139):1-117.

133. Bailey RL, Gahche JJ, Lentino CV, et al. Dietary supplement use in the United States, 2003-2006. J Nutr. 2011;141:261-266. doi:10.3945/jn.110.133025

134. Gaziano JM, Sesso HD, Christen WG, et al. Multivitamins in the prevention of cancer in men: the Physicians’ Health Study II randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2012;308:1871-1880. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.14641

135. Hercberg S, Galan P, Preziosi P, et al. The SU.VI.MAX Study: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the health effects of antioxidant vitamins and minerals. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2335-2342. doi:10.1001/archinte.164.21.2335

136. Hercberg S, Kesse-Guyot E, Druesne-Pecollo N, et al. Incidence of cancers, ischemic cardiovascular diseases and mortality during 5-year follow-up after stopping antioxidant vitamins and minerals supplements: a postintervention follow-up in the SU.VI.MAX Study. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:1875-1881. doi:10.1002/ijc.25201

137. Khan SU, Khan MU, Riaz H, et al. Effects of nutritional supplements and dietary interventions on cardiovascular outcomes: an umbrella review and evidence map. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:190-198. doi:10.7326/M19-0341

138. Guo B-Q, Li H-B, Zhai D-S, et al. Maternal multivitamin supplementation is associated with a reduced risk of autism spectrum disorder in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Res. 2019;65:4-16. doi:10.1016/j.nutres.2019.02.003

139. Wolf HT, Hegaard HK, Huusom LD, et al. Multivitamin use and adverse birth outcomes in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:404.e1-404.e30. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.03.029

140. Goh YI, Bollano E, Einarson TR, et al. Prenatal multivitamin supplementation and rates of pediatric cancers: a meta-analysis. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;81:685-691. doi:10.1038/sj.clpt.6100100

141. HealthyChildren.org. Where we stand: vitamins. Accessed June 27, 2020. www.healthychildren.org/English/healthy-living/nutrition/Pages/Where-We-Stand-Vitamins.aspx

142. Bailey RL, Catellier DJ, Jun S, et al. Total usual nutrient intakes of US children (under 48 months): findings from the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study (FITS) 2016. J Nutr. 2018;148:1557S-1566S. doi:10.1093/jn/nxy042

143. Biesalski HK, Tinz J. Multivitamin/mineral supplements: rationale and safety. Nutrition. 2017;36:60-66. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2016.06.003

144. Jalloh MA, Gregory PJ, Hein D, et al. Dietary supplement interactions with antiretrovirals: a systematic review. Int J STD AIDS. 2017;28:4-15. doi:10.1177/0956462416671087

References


1. Half of Americans take vitamins regularly. Accessed June 16, 2020. https://news.gallup.com/poll/166541/half-americans-vitamins-regularly.aspx

2. National Institutes of Health. Vitamin and mineral supplement fact sheets. Published 2020. Accessed May 26, 2020. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/list-VitaminsMinerals/

3. Day E, Bentham PW, Callaghan R, et al. Thiamine for prevention and treatment of Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome in people who abuse alcohol. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(7):CD004033. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004033.pub3

4. DiNicolantonio JJ, Niazi AK, Lavie CJ, et al. Thiamine supplementation for the treatment of heart failure: a review of the literature. Congest Heart Fail. 2013;19:214-222. doi:10.1111/chf.12037

5. Rodríguez-Martín JL, Qizilbash N, López-Arrieta JM. Thiamine for Alzheimer’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(2):CD001498. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001498

6. Schoenen J, Jacquy J, Lenaerts M. Effectiveness of high-dose riboflavin in migraine prophylaxis. A randomized controlled trial. Neurology. 1998;50:466-470. doi:10.1212/wnl.50.2.466

7. Johansson M, Relton C, Ueland PM, et al. Serum B vitamin levels and risk of lung cancer. JAMA. 2010;303:2377-2385. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.808

8. Kabat GC, Miller AB, Jain M, et al. Dietary intake of selected B vitamins in relation to risk of major cancers in women. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:816-821. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604540

9. Zschäbitz S, Cheng T-YD, Neuhouser ML, et al. B vitamin intakes and incidence of colorectal cancer: results from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97:332-343. doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.034736

10. de Vogel S, Dindore V, van Engeland M, et al. Dietary folate, methionine, riboflavin, and vitamin B-6 and risk of sporadic colorectal cancer. J Nutr. 2008;138:2372-2378. doi:10.3945/jn.108.091157

11. Bassett JK, Hodge AM, English DR, et al. Dietary intake of B vitamins and methionine and risk of lung cancer. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012;66:182-187. doi:10.1038/ejcn.2011.157

12. McRae MP. Treatment of hyperlipoproteinemia with pantethine: a review and analysis of efficacy and tolerability. Nutr Res. 2005; 25:319-333.

13. Saposnik G, Ray JG, Sheridan P, et al; Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation 2 Investigators. Homocysteine-lowering therapy and stroke risk, severity, and disability: additional findings from the HOPE 2 trial. Stroke. 2009;40:1365-1372. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.529503

14. Larsson SC, Orsini N, Wolk A. Vitamin B6 and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 2010;303:1077-1083. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.263

15. Mocellin S, Briarava M, Pilati P. Vitamin B6 and cancer risk: a field synopsis and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109:1-9. doi:10.1093/jnci/djw230

16. Ebbing M, Bønaa KH, Nygård O, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality after treatment with folic acid and vitamin B12. JAMA. 2009;302:2119-2126. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1622

17. Malouf R, Grimley Evans J. The effect of vitamin B6 on cognition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD004393. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004393

18. Balk EM, Raman G, Tatsioni A, et al. Vitamin B6, B12, and folic acid supplementation and cognitive function: a systematic review of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:21-30. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.1.21

19. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. ACOG Practice Bulletin: nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:803-814.

20. Matthews A, Dowswell T, Haas DM, et al. Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(9):CD007575. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007575.pub2

21. US Preventive Services Task Force. Folic acid for the prevention of neural tube defects: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:626-631.

22. De-Regil LM, Peña-Rosas JP, Fernández-Gaxiola AC, et al. Effects and safety of periconceptional oral folate supplementation for preventing birth defects. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(12):CD007950. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007950.pub3

23. Surén P, Roth C, Bresnahan M, et al. Association between maternal use of folic acid supplements and risk of autism spectrum disorders in children. JAMA. 2013;309:570-577. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.155925

24. Schmidt RJ, Tancredi DJ, Ozonoff S, et al. Maternal periconceptional folic acid intake and risk of autism spectrum disorders and developmental delay in the CHARGE (CHildhood Autism Risks from Genetics and Environment) case-control study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96:80-89. doi:10.3945/ajcn.110.004416

25. Levine SZ, Kodesh A, Viktorin A, et al. Association of maternal use of folic acid and multivitamin supplements in the periods before and during pregnancy with the risk of autism spectrum disorder in offspring. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75:176-184. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4050

26. Virk J, Liew Z, Olsen J, et al. Preconceptional and prenatal supplementary folic acid and multivitamin intake and autism spectrum disorders. Autism. 2016;20:710-718. doi:10.1177/1362361315604076

27. Vollset SE, Clarke R, Lewington S, et al. Effects of folic acid supplementation on overall and site-specific cancer incidence during the randomised trials: meta-analyses of data on 50,000 individuals. Lancet. 2013;381:1029-1036. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62001-7

28. Passarelli MN, Barry EL, Rees JR, et al. Folic acid supplementation and risk of colorectal neoplasia during long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019;110:903-911. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqz160

29. Oliai Araghi S, Kiefte-de Jong JC, van Dijk SC, et al. Folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation and the risk of cancer: long-term follow-up of the B vitamins for the Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures (B-PROOF) Trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019;28:275-282. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-1198

30. Wan Ismail WR, Abdul Rahman R, et al. The protective effect of maternal folic acid supplementation on childhood cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies. J Prev Med Public Health. 2019;52:205-213. doi:10.3961/jpmph.19.020

31. Martí-Carvajal AJ, Solà I, Lathyris D, et al. Homocysteine lowering interventions for preventing cardiovascular events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):CD006612. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006612.pub2

32. Wang Y, Jin Y, Wang Y, et al. The effect of folic acid in patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2019;98:e17095. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000017095

33. Malouf R, Areosa Sastre A. Vitamin B12 for cognition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD004326. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004326

34. Malouf R, Grimley Evans J. Folic acid with or without vitamin B12 for the prevention and treatment of healthy elderly and demented people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD004514. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004514.pub2

35. Suh SW, Kim HS, Han JH, et al. Efficacy of vitamins on cognitive function of non-demented people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2020;12(4). doi:10.3390/nu12041168

36. Stone KL, Lui L-Y, Christen WG, et al. Effect of combination folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 supplementation on fracture risk in women: a randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32:2331-2338. doi:10.1002/jbmr.3229

37. Age-related Eye Disease Study Research Group. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E, beta carotene, and zinc for age-related macular degeneration and vision loss: AREDS report no. 8. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1417-1436. doi:10.1001/archopht.119.10.1417

38. Park Y, Spiegelman D, Hunter DJ, et al. Intakes of vitamins A, C, and E and use of multiple vitamin supplements and risk of colon cancer: a pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies. Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21:1745-1757. doi:10.1007/s10552-010-9549-y

39. Koushik A, Wang M, Anderson KE, et al. Intake of vitamins A, C, and E and folate and the risk of ovarian cancer in a pooled analysis of 10 cohort studies. Cancer Causes Control. 2015;26:1315-1327. doi:10.1007/s10552-015-0626-0

40. Lin J, Cook NR, Albert C, et al. Vitamins C and E and beta carotene supplementation and cancer risk: a randomized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:14-23. doi:10.1093/jnci/djn438

41. Fortmann SP, Burda BU, Senger CA, et al. Vitamin and mineral supplements in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer: an updated systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:824-834. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-12-201312170-00729

42. Mathew MC, Ervin A-M, Tao J, et al. Antioxidant vitamin supplementation for preventing and slowing the progression of age-related cataract. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD004567. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004567.pub2

43. Butler M, Nelson VA, Davila H, et al. Over-the-counter supplement interventions to prevent cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and clinical Alzheimer-type dementia: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:52-62. doi:10.7326/M17-1530

44. Crandall C. Vitamin A intake and osteoporosis: a clinical review. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2004;13:939-953. doi:10.1089/jwh.2004.13.939

45. Kranz S, Pimpin L, Fawzi W, et al. Mortality benefits of vitamin A are not affected by varying frequency, total dose, or duration of supplementation. Food Nutr Bull. 2017;38:260-266. doi:10.1177/0379572117696663

46. Miller ER, Pastor-Barriuso R, Dalal D, et al. Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:37-46. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-142-1-200501040-00110

47. Klein EA, Thompson IM, Tangen CM, et al. Vitamin E and the risk of prostate cancer: the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT). JAMA. 2011;306:1549-1556. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1437

48. Hemilä H, Chalker E. Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(1):CD000980. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4

49. Avenell A, Mak JCS, O’Connell D. Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures in post-menopausal women and older men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(4):CD000227. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000227.pub4

50. Zhao J-G, Zeng X-T, Wang J, et al. Association between calcium or vitamin D supplementation and fracture incidence in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2017;318:2466-2482. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19344

51. Kahwati LC, Weber RP, Pan H, et al. Vitamin D, calcium, or combined supplementation for the primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling adults: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319:1600-1612. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21640

52. Winzenberg T, Powell S, Shaw KA, et al. Effects of vitamin D supplementation on bone density in healthy children: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;342:c7254. doi:10.1136/bmj.c7254

53. Winzenberg TM, Powell S, Shaw KA, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for improving bone mineral density in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(10):CD006944. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006944.pub2

54. Bolland MJ, Grey A, Gamble GD, et al. Vitamin D supplementation and falls: a trial sequential meta-analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2:573-580. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70068-3

55. Guirguis-Blake JM, Michael YL, Perdue LA, et al. Interventions to prevent falls in older adults: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319:1705-1716. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21962

56. Gillespie LD, Robertson MC, Gillespie WJ, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(9):CD007146. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007146.pub3

57. Cameron ID, Dyer SM, Panagoda CE, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities and hospitals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;9:CD005465. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005465.pub4

58. Chung M, Balk EM, Brendel M, et al. Vitamin D and calcium: a systematic review of health outcomes. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2009;(183):1-420.

59. Autier P, Gandini S. Vitamin D supplementation and total mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1730-1737. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.16.1730

60. Zhang Y, Fang F, Tang J, et al. Association between vitamin D supplementation and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;366:l4673. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4673

61. Cauley JA, Chlebowski RT, Wactawski-Wende J, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and health outcomes five years after active intervention ended: the Women’s Health Initiative. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013;22:915-929. doi:10.1089/jwh.2013.4270

62. Bjelakovic G, Gluud LL, Nikolova D, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD007470. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007470.pub3

63. Zhou L, Chen B, Sheng L, et al. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of breast cancer: a trial sequential meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;182:1-8. doi:10.1007/s10549-020-05669-4

64. Shahvazi S, Soltani S, Ahmadi SM, et al A. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Horm Metab Res. 2019;51:11-21. doi:10.1055/a-0774-8809

65. Buttigliero C, Monagheddu C, Petroni P, et al. Prognostic role of vitamin d status and efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in cancer patients: a systematic review. Oncologist. 2011;16:1215-1227. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0098

66. Cortés-Jofré M, Rueda J-R, Asenjo-Lobos C, et al. Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;3:CD002141. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002141.pub3

67. Elamin MB, Abu Elnour NO, Elamin KB, et al. Vitamin D and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96:1931-1942. doi:10.1210/jc.2011-0398

68. Pittas AG, Chung M, Trikalinos T, et al. Systematic review: vitamin D and cardiometabolic outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:307-314. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-5-201003020-00009

69. Ford JA, MacLennan GS, Avenell A, et al. Cardiovascular disease and vitamin D supplementation: trial analysis, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100:746-755. doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.082602

70. Beveridge LA, Struthers AD, Khan F, et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis incorporating individual patient data. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:745-754. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0237

71. Qi D, Nie X, Cai J. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on hypertension in non-CKD populations: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2017;227:177-186. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.040

72. Rutjes AW, Denton DA, Di Nisio M, et al. Vitamin and mineral supplementation for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in mid and late life. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;12:CD011906. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011906.pub2

73. Straube S, Derry S, Straube C, et al. Vitamin D for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(5):CD007771. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007771.pub3

74. Zadro JR, Shirley D, Ferreira M, et al. Is vitamin D supplementation effective for low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician. 2018;21:121-145.

75. Wu Z, Malihi Z, Stewart AW, et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician. 2016;19:415-427.

76. Palacios C, Kostiuk LK, Peña-Rosas JP. Vitamin D supplementation for women during pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;7:CD008873. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008873.pub4

77. Bi WG, Nuyt AM, Weiler H, et al. Association between vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy and offspring growth, morbidity, and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172:635-645. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0302

78. Yepes-Nuñez JJ, Brożek JL, Fiocchi A, et al. Vitamin D supplementation in primary allergy prevention: Systematic review of randomized and non-randomized studies. Allergy. 2018;73:37-49. doi:10.1111/all.13241

79. Purswani JM, Gala P, Dwarkanath P, et al. The role of vitamin D in pre-eclampsia: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:231. doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1408-3

80. Khaing W, Vallibhakara SA-O, Tantrakul V, et al. Calcium and vitamin D supplementation for prevention of preeclampsia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2017;9:1141. doi:10.3390/nu9101141

81. Palacios C, De-Regil LM, Lombardo LK, et al. Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy: updated meta-analysis on maternal outcomes. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2016;164:148-155. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.02.008

82. Litonjua AA, Carey VJ, Laranjo N, et al. Six-year follow-up of a trial of antenatal vitamin D for asthma reduction. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:525-533. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1906137

83. Martineau AR, Jolliffe DA, Hooper RL, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583

84. Jolliffe DA, Greenberg L, Hooper RL, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent asthma exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet Respir Med. 2017;5:881-890. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(17)30306-5

85. Chandler PD, Wang L, Zhang X, et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation alone or with calcium on adiposity measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Rev. 2015;73:577-593. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuv012

86. Gowda U, Mutowo MP, Smith BJ, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to reduce depression in adults: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutrition. 2015;31:421-429. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2014.06.017

87. Li G, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, et al. Efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in depression in adults: a systematic review. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99:757-767. doi:10.1210/jc.2013-3450

88. Pittas AG, Dawson-Hughes B, Sheehan P, et al. Vitamin D supplementation and prevention of type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:520-530. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1900906

89. Lee CJ, Iyer G, Liu Y, et al. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies. J Diabetes Complicat. 2017;31:1115-1126. doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2017.04.019

90. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Bjelakovic M, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for chronic liver diseases in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11:CD011564. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011564.pub2

91. Sankar MJ, Chandrasekaran A, Kumar P, et al. Vitamin K prophylaxis for prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding: a systematic review. J Perinatol. 2016;36(suppl 1):S29-S35. doi:10.1038/jp.2016.30

92. Mott A, Bradley T, Wright K, et al. Effect of vitamin K on bone mineral density and fractures in adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30:1543-1559. doi:10.1007/s00198-019-04949-0

93. Cockayne S, Adamson J, Lanham-New S, et al. Vitamin K and the prevention of fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1256-1261. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.12.1256

94. Chen H-G, Sheng L-T, Zhang Y-B, et al. Association of vitamin K with cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nutr. 2019;58:2191-2205. doi:10.1007/s00394-019-01998-3

95. Grodstein F, O’Brien J, Kang JH, et al. Long-term multivitamin supplementation and cognitive function in men: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:806-814. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-12-201312170-00006

96. Christen WG, Glynn RJ, Manson JE, et al. Effects of multivitamin supplement on cataract and age-related macular degeneration in a randomized trial of male physicians. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:525-534. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.09.038

97. Holland S, Silberstein SD, Freitag F, et al. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78:1346-1353. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182535d0c

98. Rumberger JA, Napolitano J, Azumano I, et al. Pantethine, a derivative of vitamin B(5) used as a nutritional supplement, favorably alters low-density lipoprotein cholesterol metabolism in low- to moderate-cardiovascular risk North American subjects: a triple-blinded placebo and diet-controlled investigation. Nutr Res. 2011;31:608-615. doi:10.1016/j.nutres.2011.08.001

99. Evans M, Rumberger JA, Azumano I, et al. Pantethine, a derivative of vitamin B5, favorably alters total, LDL and non-HDL cholesterol in low to moderate cardiovascular risk subjects eligible for statin therapy: a triple-blinded placebo and diet-controlled investigation. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2014;10:89-100. doi:10.2147/VHRM.S57116

100. Ebbing M, Bønaa KH, Arnesen E, et al. Combined analyses and extended follow-up of two randomized controlled homocysteine-lowering B-vitamin trials. J Intern Med. 2010;268:367-382. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02259.x

101. Toole JF, Malinow MR, Chambless LE, et al. Lowering homocysteine in patients with ischemic stroke to prevent recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, and death: the Vitamin Intervention for Stroke Prevention (VISP) randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;291:565-575. doi:10.1001/jama.291.5.565

102. Albert CM, Cook NR, Gaziano JM, et al. Effect of folic acid and B vitamins on risk of cardiovascular events and total mortality among women at high risk for cardiovascular disease: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2008;299:2027-2036. doi:10.1001/jama.299.17.2027

103. FDA. The FDA warns that biotin may interfere with lab tests: FDA Safety Communication. Accessed June 1, 2020. www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/update-fda-warns-biotin-may-interfere-lab-tests-fda-safety-communication

104. National Toxicology Program. Identifying research needs for assessing safe use of high intakes of folic acid. Published 2015. Accessed June 7, 2020. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/folicacid/final_monograph_508.pdf

105. Miller ER, Juraschek S, Pastor-Barriuso R, et al. Meta-analysis of folic acid supplementation trials on risk of cardiovascular disease and risk interaction with baseline homocysteine levels. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:517-527. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.03.064

106. van Wijngaarden JP, Swart KMA, Enneman AW, et al. Effect of daily vitamin B-12 and folic acid supplementation on fracture incidence in elderly individuals with an elevated plasma homocysteine concentration: B-PROOF, a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100:1578-1586. doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.090043

107. Harirchian MH, Mohammadpour Z, Fatehi F, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluating the trend of cytokines to vitamin A supplementation in autoimmune diseases. Clin Nutr. 2019;38:2038-2044. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2018.10.026

108. Liu T, Zhong S, Liao X, et al. A meta-analysis of oxidative stress markers in depression. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0138904. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138904

109. Zeng J, Chen L, Wang Z, et al. Marginal vitamin A deficiency facilitates Alzheimer’s pathogenesis. Acta Neuropathol. 2017;133:967-982. doi:10.1007/s00401-017-1669-y

110. Omenn GS, Goodman GE, Thornquist MD, et al. Effects of a combination of beta carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1150-1155. doi:10.1056/NEJM199605023341802

111. Kanellopoulou A, Riza E, Samoli E, et al. Dietary supplement use after cancer diagnosis in relation to total mortality, cancer mortality and recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Cancer. 2021;73:16-30. doi:10.1080/01635581.2020.1734215

112. Sunkara A, Raizner A. Supplemental vitamins and minerals for cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2019;15:179-184. doi:10.14797/mdcj-15-3-179

113. Zhang S, Hunter DJ, Forman MR, et al. Dietary carotenoids and vitamins A, C, and E and risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:547-556. doi:10.1093/jnci/91.6.547

114. He J, Gu Y, Zhang S. Vitamin A and breast cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18:e1389-e1400. doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2018.07.025

115. Harris HR, Orsini N, Wolk A. Vitamin C and survival among women with breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:1223-1231. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2014.02.013

116. Moser MA, Chun OK. Vitamin C and heart health: a review based on findings from epidemiologic studies. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17. doi:10.3390/ijms17081328

117. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, et al. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(3):CD007176. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007176.pub2

118. US Preventive Services Task Force. Vitamin supplementation to prevent cancer and CVD: preventive medication. Accessed May 21, 2020. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/vitamin-supplementation-to-prevent-cancer-and-cvd-counseling

119. Hemilä H, Louhiala P. Vitamin C for preventing and treating pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(8):CD005532. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005532.pub3

120. Padhani ZA, Moazzam Z, Ashraf A, et al. Vitamin C supplementation for prevention and treatment of pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;4:CD013134. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013134.pub2

121. Bjelakovic G, Gluud LL, Nikolova D, et al. Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(6):CD007469. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007469.pub2

122. Autier P, Mullie P, Macacu A, et al. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on non-skeletal disorders: a systematic review of meta-analyses and randomised trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5:986-1004. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30357-1

123. Wagner CL, Greer FR; American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Breastfeeding, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition. Prevention of rickets and vitamin D deficiency in infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2008;122:1142-1152. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-1862

124. Hollis BW, Wagner CL, Howard CR, et al. Maternal versus infant vitamin D supplementation during lactation: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2015;136:625-634. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-1669

125. Malihi Z, Wu Z, Stewart AW, et al. Hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, and kidney stones in long-term studies of vitamin D supplementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;104:1039-1051. doi:10.3945/ajcn.116.134981

126. Vogiatzi MG, Jacobson-Dickman E, DeBoer MD; Drugs, and Therapeutics Committee of The Pediatric Endocrine Society. Vitamin D supplementation and risk of toxicity in pediatrics: a review of current literature. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99:1132-1141. doi:10.1210/jc.2013-3655

127. Zurynski Y, Grover CJ, Jalaludin B, et al. Vitamin K deficiency bleeding in Australian infants 1993-2017: an Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit study. Arch Dis Child. 2020;105:433-438. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2018-316424

128. Ng E, Loewy AD. Guidelines for vitamin K prophylaxis in newborns: a joint statement of the Canadian Paediatric Society and the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Can Fam Physician. 2018;64:736-739.

129. Araki S, Shirahata A. Vitamin K deficiency bleeding in infancy. Nutrients. 2020;12:780. doi:10.3390/nu12030780

130. Shea MK, Holden RM. Vitamin K status and vascular calcification: evidence from observational and clinical studies. Adv Nutr. 2012;3:158-165. doi:10.3945/an.111.001644

131. Hartley L, Clar C, Ghannam O, et al. Vitamin K for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(9):CD011148. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011148.pub2

132. Huang H-Y, Caballero B, Chang S, et al. Multivitamin/mineral supplements and prevention of chronic disease. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2006;(139):1-117.

133. Bailey RL, Gahche JJ, Lentino CV, et al. Dietary supplement use in the United States, 2003-2006. J Nutr. 2011;141:261-266. doi:10.3945/jn.110.133025

134. Gaziano JM, Sesso HD, Christen WG, et al. Multivitamins in the prevention of cancer in men: the Physicians’ Health Study II randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2012;308:1871-1880. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.14641

135. Hercberg S, Galan P, Preziosi P, et al. The SU.VI.MAX Study: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the health effects of antioxidant vitamins and minerals. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2335-2342. doi:10.1001/archinte.164.21.2335

136. Hercberg S, Kesse-Guyot E, Druesne-Pecollo N, et al. Incidence of cancers, ischemic cardiovascular diseases and mortality during 5-year follow-up after stopping antioxidant vitamins and minerals supplements: a postintervention follow-up in the SU.VI.MAX Study. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:1875-1881. doi:10.1002/ijc.25201

137. Khan SU, Khan MU, Riaz H, et al. Effects of nutritional supplements and dietary interventions on cardiovascular outcomes: an umbrella review and evidence map. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:190-198. doi:10.7326/M19-0341

138. Guo B-Q, Li H-B, Zhai D-S, et al. Maternal multivitamin supplementation is associated with a reduced risk of autism spectrum disorder in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Res. 2019;65:4-16. doi:10.1016/j.nutres.2019.02.003

139. Wolf HT, Hegaard HK, Huusom LD, et al. Multivitamin use and adverse birth outcomes in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:404.e1-404.e30. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.03.029

140. Goh YI, Bollano E, Einarson TR, et al. Prenatal multivitamin supplementation and rates of pediatric cancers: a meta-analysis. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;81:685-691. doi:10.1038/sj.clpt.6100100

141. HealthyChildren.org. Where we stand: vitamins. Accessed June 27, 2020. www.healthychildren.org/English/healthy-living/nutrition/Pages/Where-We-Stand-Vitamins.aspx

142. Bailey RL, Catellier DJ, Jun S, et al. Total usual nutrient intakes of US children (under 48 months): findings from the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study (FITS) 2016. J Nutr. 2018;148:1557S-1566S. doi:10.1093/jn/nxy042

143. Biesalski HK, Tinz J. Multivitamin/mineral supplements: rationale and safety. Nutrition. 2017;36:60-66. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2016.06.003

144. Jalloh MA, Gregory PJ, Hein D, et al. Dietary supplement interactions with antiretrovirals: a systematic review. Int J STD AIDS. 2017;28:4-15. doi:10.1177/0956462416671087

Issue
OBG Management - 34(2)
Issue
OBG Management - 34(2)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Citation Override
OBG Manag. 2022;34(2):28-30, 32-37, 48 | Originally published in J Fam Pract. 2021;70:386-391d | doi: 10.12788/jfp.0288
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
APPLIED EVIDENCE
Gate On Date
Fri, 12/10/2021 - 13:30
Un-Gate On Date
Fri, 12/10/2021 - 13:30
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Fri, 12/10/2021 - 13:30
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Vitamin D counters bone density loss with aromatase inhibitors

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/04/2023 - 16:58

Among women with breast cancer being treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI), supplementation with vitamin D and calcium protected against bone loss after 5 years, according to results from a prospective cohort study in Brazil. The study found no difference in bone mineral density outcomes at 5 years between women with hormone receptor–positive cancers treated with aromatase inhibitors (AIG) and triple negative or HER-2 positive patients who were treated with another therapy (CG).

Courtesy Renata Flores
Dr. Marcelo Antonini

About two-thirds of women with breast cancer have tumors that are positive for hormone receptors, and so are often treated with endocrine therapy such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or AI. However, there are concerns that AI treatment may lead to a loss of bone mineral density and impacts on quality of life. This loss is influenced by a range of factors, including body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, corticosteroid use, calcium in the diet, and circulating levels of vitamin D.

Vitamin D helps to regulate absorption of calcium and phosphorus, ensuring that their plasma concentrations are high enough for adequate bone health. But vitamin D deficiency is a common problem, even in tropical areas such as Brazil. “It is high in the general population and especially in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Thus, vitamin D and calcium supplementation has an impact on these women’s lives,” said lead author Marcelo Antonini, MD, who presented the study (abstract P1-13-04) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. He is a researcher at Hospital Servidor Publico Estadual in São Paulo, Brazil.

Although the findings are encouraging, more work needs to be done before it leads to a change in practice. “Larger studies must be carried out to prove this theory; however, in noncancer patients we have already well established the benefits of vitamin D and calcium supplementation,” Dr. Antonini said in an interview

The researchers examined women before the start of treatment, at 6 months, and at 5 years. Those with vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL received 7,000 IU/day for 8 weeks, followed by a 1,000 IU/day maintenance dose. Subjects with osteopenia received a calcium supplement (500 mg calcium carbonate), and those with osteoporosis received 4 mg zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis).

There were 140 patients in both the AIG and CG groups. The average age was 65 years. Sixty-four percent of the AIG group and 71% of the CG group were vitamin D deficient at baseline. At 5 years, the frequencies were 17% and 16%, respectively. Both groups showed significant declines in bone mineral density in the femoral neck and femur at both 6 months and 5 years, but there was no significant difference between them. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to bone density loss in the spine.

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center and had a small population size.

Another prospective observational study, published earlier this year, looked at vitamin D supplementation in 741 patients (mean age 61.9 years) being treated with aromatase inhibitors, whose baseline vitamin D levels were less 30 ng/mL. They received 16,000 IU dose of oral calcifediol every 2 weeks. At 3 months, individuals who achieved vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or higher were less likely to have joint pain (P < .05). At 12 months, data from 473 patients showed that for every 10-ng/mL increase in serum vitamin D at 3 months, there was a reduction in loss of bone marrow density in the lumbar spine (adjusted beta = +0.177%, P < .05), though there were no associations between vitamin D levels and BMD of the femur or total hip.

“Our results suggest that optimal levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of joint pain related to AI treatment. A target threshold (of vitamin D) levels was set at 40 ng/mL to significantly reduce the increase in joint pain. The authors noted that this threshold is well above the goal of 20 ng/mL recommended by the 2010 Institute of Medicine report.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Antonini has no relevant financial disclosures.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

Among women with breast cancer being treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI), supplementation with vitamin D and calcium protected against bone loss after 5 years, according to results from a prospective cohort study in Brazil. The study found no difference in bone mineral density outcomes at 5 years between women with hormone receptor–positive cancers treated with aromatase inhibitors (AIG) and triple negative or HER-2 positive patients who were treated with another therapy (CG).

Courtesy Renata Flores
Dr. Marcelo Antonini

About two-thirds of women with breast cancer have tumors that are positive for hormone receptors, and so are often treated with endocrine therapy such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or AI. However, there are concerns that AI treatment may lead to a loss of bone mineral density and impacts on quality of life. This loss is influenced by a range of factors, including body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, corticosteroid use, calcium in the diet, and circulating levels of vitamin D.

Vitamin D helps to regulate absorption of calcium and phosphorus, ensuring that their plasma concentrations are high enough for adequate bone health. But vitamin D deficiency is a common problem, even in tropical areas such as Brazil. “It is high in the general population and especially in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Thus, vitamin D and calcium supplementation has an impact on these women’s lives,” said lead author Marcelo Antonini, MD, who presented the study (abstract P1-13-04) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. He is a researcher at Hospital Servidor Publico Estadual in São Paulo, Brazil.

Although the findings are encouraging, more work needs to be done before it leads to a change in practice. “Larger studies must be carried out to prove this theory; however, in noncancer patients we have already well established the benefits of vitamin D and calcium supplementation,” Dr. Antonini said in an interview

The researchers examined women before the start of treatment, at 6 months, and at 5 years. Those with vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL received 7,000 IU/day for 8 weeks, followed by a 1,000 IU/day maintenance dose. Subjects with osteopenia received a calcium supplement (500 mg calcium carbonate), and those with osteoporosis received 4 mg zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis).

There were 140 patients in both the AIG and CG groups. The average age was 65 years. Sixty-four percent of the AIG group and 71% of the CG group were vitamin D deficient at baseline. At 5 years, the frequencies were 17% and 16%, respectively. Both groups showed significant declines in bone mineral density in the femoral neck and femur at both 6 months and 5 years, but there was no significant difference between them. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to bone density loss in the spine.

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center and had a small population size.

Another prospective observational study, published earlier this year, looked at vitamin D supplementation in 741 patients (mean age 61.9 years) being treated with aromatase inhibitors, whose baseline vitamin D levels were less 30 ng/mL. They received 16,000 IU dose of oral calcifediol every 2 weeks. At 3 months, individuals who achieved vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or higher were less likely to have joint pain (P < .05). At 12 months, data from 473 patients showed that for every 10-ng/mL increase in serum vitamin D at 3 months, there was a reduction in loss of bone marrow density in the lumbar spine (adjusted beta = +0.177%, P < .05), though there were no associations between vitamin D levels and BMD of the femur or total hip.

“Our results suggest that optimal levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of joint pain related to AI treatment. A target threshold (of vitamin D) levels was set at 40 ng/mL to significantly reduce the increase in joint pain. The authors noted that this threshold is well above the goal of 20 ng/mL recommended by the 2010 Institute of Medicine report.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Antonini has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among women with breast cancer being treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI), supplementation with vitamin D and calcium protected against bone loss after 5 years, according to results from a prospective cohort study in Brazil. The study found no difference in bone mineral density outcomes at 5 years between women with hormone receptor–positive cancers treated with aromatase inhibitors (AIG) and triple negative or HER-2 positive patients who were treated with another therapy (CG).

Courtesy Renata Flores
Dr. Marcelo Antonini

About two-thirds of women with breast cancer have tumors that are positive for hormone receptors, and so are often treated with endocrine therapy such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or AI. However, there are concerns that AI treatment may lead to a loss of bone mineral density and impacts on quality of life. This loss is influenced by a range of factors, including body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, corticosteroid use, calcium in the diet, and circulating levels of vitamin D.

Vitamin D helps to regulate absorption of calcium and phosphorus, ensuring that their plasma concentrations are high enough for adequate bone health. But vitamin D deficiency is a common problem, even in tropical areas such as Brazil. “It is high in the general population and especially in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Thus, vitamin D and calcium supplementation has an impact on these women’s lives,” said lead author Marcelo Antonini, MD, who presented the study (abstract P1-13-04) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. He is a researcher at Hospital Servidor Publico Estadual in São Paulo, Brazil.

Although the findings are encouraging, more work needs to be done before it leads to a change in practice. “Larger studies must be carried out to prove this theory; however, in noncancer patients we have already well established the benefits of vitamin D and calcium supplementation,” Dr. Antonini said in an interview

The researchers examined women before the start of treatment, at 6 months, and at 5 years. Those with vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL received 7,000 IU/day for 8 weeks, followed by a 1,000 IU/day maintenance dose. Subjects with osteopenia received a calcium supplement (500 mg calcium carbonate), and those with osteoporosis received 4 mg zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis).

There were 140 patients in both the AIG and CG groups. The average age was 65 years. Sixty-four percent of the AIG group and 71% of the CG group were vitamin D deficient at baseline. At 5 years, the frequencies were 17% and 16%, respectively. Both groups showed significant declines in bone mineral density in the femoral neck and femur at both 6 months and 5 years, but there was no significant difference between them. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to bone density loss in the spine.

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center and had a small population size.

Another prospective observational study, published earlier this year, looked at vitamin D supplementation in 741 patients (mean age 61.9 years) being treated with aromatase inhibitors, whose baseline vitamin D levels were less 30 ng/mL. They received 16,000 IU dose of oral calcifediol every 2 weeks. At 3 months, individuals who achieved vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or higher were less likely to have joint pain (P < .05). At 12 months, data from 473 patients showed that for every 10-ng/mL increase in serum vitamin D at 3 months, there was a reduction in loss of bone marrow density in the lumbar spine (adjusted beta = +0.177%, P < .05), though there were no associations between vitamin D levels and BMD of the femur or total hip.

“Our results suggest that optimal levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of joint pain related to AI treatment. A target threshold (of vitamin D) levels was set at 40 ng/mL to significantly reduce the increase in joint pain. The authors noted that this threshold is well above the goal of 20 ng/mL recommended by the 2010 Institute of Medicine report.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Antonini has no relevant financial disclosures.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM SABCS 2021

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Metformin does not improve outcomes in early breast cancer

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/04/2023 - 16:58

 

Adjuvant treatment with metformin did not improve outcomes in most patients with early breast cancer, according to new findings from a randomized controlled trial.

In the primary analysis, the addition of metformin to standard therapy in moderate/high-risk hormone receptor positive or negative breast cancer did not improve invasive disease–free survival (IDFS), overall survival, or other breast outcomes, explained lead author Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, FRCPC, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. “Metformin should not be used as breast cancer treatment in this population.”

However, an exploratory analysis suggested that metformin may have a beneficial effect in women with HER2-positive breast cancer, Dr. Goodwin noted.

In this subset, IDFS was improved in patients who received metformin (hazard ratio, 0.64; P = .03), as was overall survival (HR, 0.53; P = .04).

The findings were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“This trial arose from the observation that obesity is associated with poor breast cancer outcomes, and insulin levels are higher in obesity and may be more strongly associated with breast cancer outcomes than obesity,” said Dr. Goodwin.

Metformin was used because of its ability to promote modest weight loss and lower insulin by about 15%-20% in nondiabetic breast cancer survivors. It has also shown anticancer effects in preclinical studies. “In some window of opportunity neoadjuvant studies, it has been shown to reduce Ki67 in breast cancer cells,” she said. “And in preclinical in vitro and in vivo research, it slows growth of breast cancer.”

In addition, emerging evidence from observational studies suggests that the use of metformin to treat diabetes in breast cancer patients may be associated with better outcomes, strengthening the rationale for the study.

The negative results in breast cancer follow recent reports of negative findings in lung cancer, when metformin was found to be ineffective when used alongside chemotherapy in locally advanced lung cancer, as reported by this news organization.
 

No benefit seen

Metformin was compared to placebo in the phase 3 CCTG MA.32 trial, conducted in 3,649 patients aged 18-74 years with T1-3 N0-3 M0 breast cancer. All patients were treated with standard therapy and were randomized to receive metformin 850 mg twice daily for 5 years or placebo.

In 2016, “futility was declared in ER/PR-negative patients” after a second interim analysis conducted at 29.6 months’ median follow-up, Dr. Goodwin noted. The intervention was stopped in that group, although blinding and follow-up continued.

After that, the study’s primary analysis focused on the 2,533 ER/PR-positive patients (mean age, 52.7 years; mean body mass index, 28.8; approx. 60% postmenopausal).

Just over half of these patients had T2 tumor stage, and most disease was grade 2 or 3.

In addition, 16.5% (of metformin) and 17.4% (of placebo) patients had HER2-positive disease, with the majority (97%) of all HER2 patients receiving trastuzumab.

There was no difference between the two groups in IDFS events, occurring in 18.5% of patients receiving metformin and 18.3% who received placebo, with most (75.6%) events due to breast cancer (HR, 1.01; P = .92).

There were 131 deaths in the metformin arm and 119 in the placebo arm, with most (75.8%) of the deaths related to breast cancer (HR, 1.10; P = .47).

Other breast cancer outcomes had similar results, including distant disease-free survival (HR, 0.99; P = .94) and breast cancer–free interval (HR, 0.98; P = .87), both of which showed no advantage for metformin.
 

 

 

Possible HER2 advantage

However, the exploratory analysis suggested there may be an advantage for patients with HER2-positive disease, but primarily those who had at least one C allele of a prespecified ATM associated rs11212617 SNP. These patients achieved a higher pathologic complete response rate with metformin than that of those without the allele.

There were 620 patients with HER2-positive disease analyzed, with 99.4% receiving chemotherapy and 96.5% receiving trastuzumab. There were 99 IDFS events, and 47 OS events.

In the entire HER2-positive cohort, patients who received metformin had fewer IDFS events (HR, 0.64; P = .026) compared with the placebo arm. Mortality was lower with metformin (HR for overall survival, 0.53; P = .038).

“Subjects with HER2-positive breast cancer, notably those with at least one C allele of the ATM-associated rs11212617 SNP, experienced improved IDFS and overall survival with metformin,” Dr. Goodwin concluded. “However, no P-value ‘spend’ was allocated to this comparison. As a result, it requires replication in a prospective trial focusing on the HER2-positive population.”
 

More research?

Stephanie Bernik, MD, chief of breast surgery, Mount Sinai West, and associate professor of breast surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was approached by this news organization for an independent comment.

“It has long been known that obesity, which often correlates with diabetes, increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer,” she said.

“This study tried to show that using a medication that helps control insulin levels, even in those without diabetes, might decrease one’s risk of breast cancer,” she said. “Unfortunately, using metformin had no effect on outcomes in this study, even though it has shown promise in other studies. Perhaps more research needs to be carried out to try to pinpoint which mechanisms of action, if any, might be helpful to combat cancer in those with and without diabetes.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Breast Cancer Researcher Foundation, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Canadian Cancer Society, Apotex, Swiss Cancer Research, and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Dr. Goodwin has no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

Adjuvant treatment with metformin did not improve outcomes in most patients with early breast cancer, according to new findings from a randomized controlled trial.

In the primary analysis, the addition of metformin to standard therapy in moderate/high-risk hormone receptor positive or negative breast cancer did not improve invasive disease–free survival (IDFS), overall survival, or other breast outcomes, explained lead author Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, FRCPC, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. “Metformin should not be used as breast cancer treatment in this population.”

However, an exploratory analysis suggested that metformin may have a beneficial effect in women with HER2-positive breast cancer, Dr. Goodwin noted.

In this subset, IDFS was improved in patients who received metformin (hazard ratio, 0.64; P = .03), as was overall survival (HR, 0.53; P = .04).

The findings were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“This trial arose from the observation that obesity is associated with poor breast cancer outcomes, and insulin levels are higher in obesity and may be more strongly associated with breast cancer outcomes than obesity,” said Dr. Goodwin.

Metformin was used because of its ability to promote modest weight loss and lower insulin by about 15%-20% in nondiabetic breast cancer survivors. It has also shown anticancer effects in preclinical studies. “In some window of opportunity neoadjuvant studies, it has been shown to reduce Ki67 in breast cancer cells,” she said. “And in preclinical in vitro and in vivo research, it slows growth of breast cancer.”

In addition, emerging evidence from observational studies suggests that the use of metformin to treat diabetes in breast cancer patients may be associated with better outcomes, strengthening the rationale for the study.

The negative results in breast cancer follow recent reports of negative findings in lung cancer, when metformin was found to be ineffective when used alongside chemotherapy in locally advanced lung cancer, as reported by this news organization.
 

No benefit seen

Metformin was compared to placebo in the phase 3 CCTG MA.32 trial, conducted in 3,649 patients aged 18-74 years with T1-3 N0-3 M0 breast cancer. All patients were treated with standard therapy and were randomized to receive metformin 850 mg twice daily for 5 years or placebo.

In 2016, “futility was declared in ER/PR-negative patients” after a second interim analysis conducted at 29.6 months’ median follow-up, Dr. Goodwin noted. The intervention was stopped in that group, although blinding and follow-up continued.

After that, the study’s primary analysis focused on the 2,533 ER/PR-positive patients (mean age, 52.7 years; mean body mass index, 28.8; approx. 60% postmenopausal).

Just over half of these patients had T2 tumor stage, and most disease was grade 2 or 3.

In addition, 16.5% (of metformin) and 17.4% (of placebo) patients had HER2-positive disease, with the majority (97%) of all HER2 patients receiving trastuzumab.

There was no difference between the two groups in IDFS events, occurring in 18.5% of patients receiving metformin and 18.3% who received placebo, with most (75.6%) events due to breast cancer (HR, 1.01; P = .92).

There were 131 deaths in the metformin arm and 119 in the placebo arm, with most (75.8%) of the deaths related to breast cancer (HR, 1.10; P = .47).

Other breast cancer outcomes had similar results, including distant disease-free survival (HR, 0.99; P = .94) and breast cancer–free interval (HR, 0.98; P = .87), both of which showed no advantage for metformin.
 

 

 

Possible HER2 advantage

However, the exploratory analysis suggested there may be an advantage for patients with HER2-positive disease, but primarily those who had at least one C allele of a prespecified ATM associated rs11212617 SNP. These patients achieved a higher pathologic complete response rate with metformin than that of those without the allele.

There were 620 patients with HER2-positive disease analyzed, with 99.4% receiving chemotherapy and 96.5% receiving trastuzumab. There were 99 IDFS events, and 47 OS events.

In the entire HER2-positive cohort, patients who received metformin had fewer IDFS events (HR, 0.64; P = .026) compared with the placebo arm. Mortality was lower with metformin (HR for overall survival, 0.53; P = .038).

“Subjects with HER2-positive breast cancer, notably those with at least one C allele of the ATM-associated rs11212617 SNP, experienced improved IDFS and overall survival with metformin,” Dr. Goodwin concluded. “However, no P-value ‘spend’ was allocated to this comparison. As a result, it requires replication in a prospective trial focusing on the HER2-positive population.”
 

More research?

Stephanie Bernik, MD, chief of breast surgery, Mount Sinai West, and associate professor of breast surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was approached by this news organization for an independent comment.

“It has long been known that obesity, which often correlates with diabetes, increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer,” she said.

“This study tried to show that using a medication that helps control insulin levels, even in those without diabetes, might decrease one’s risk of breast cancer,” she said. “Unfortunately, using metformin had no effect on outcomes in this study, even though it has shown promise in other studies. Perhaps more research needs to be carried out to try to pinpoint which mechanisms of action, if any, might be helpful to combat cancer in those with and without diabetes.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Breast Cancer Researcher Foundation, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Canadian Cancer Society, Apotex, Swiss Cancer Research, and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Dr. Goodwin has no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

 

Adjuvant treatment with metformin did not improve outcomes in most patients with early breast cancer, according to new findings from a randomized controlled trial.

In the primary analysis, the addition of metformin to standard therapy in moderate/high-risk hormone receptor positive or negative breast cancer did not improve invasive disease–free survival (IDFS), overall survival, or other breast outcomes, explained lead author Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, FRCPC, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. “Metformin should not be used as breast cancer treatment in this population.”

However, an exploratory analysis suggested that metformin may have a beneficial effect in women with HER2-positive breast cancer, Dr. Goodwin noted.

In this subset, IDFS was improved in patients who received metformin (hazard ratio, 0.64; P = .03), as was overall survival (HR, 0.53; P = .04).

The findings were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“This trial arose from the observation that obesity is associated with poor breast cancer outcomes, and insulin levels are higher in obesity and may be more strongly associated with breast cancer outcomes than obesity,” said Dr. Goodwin.

Metformin was used because of its ability to promote modest weight loss and lower insulin by about 15%-20% in nondiabetic breast cancer survivors. It has also shown anticancer effects in preclinical studies. “In some window of opportunity neoadjuvant studies, it has been shown to reduce Ki67 in breast cancer cells,” she said. “And in preclinical in vitro and in vivo research, it slows growth of breast cancer.”

In addition, emerging evidence from observational studies suggests that the use of metformin to treat diabetes in breast cancer patients may be associated with better outcomes, strengthening the rationale for the study.

The negative results in breast cancer follow recent reports of negative findings in lung cancer, when metformin was found to be ineffective when used alongside chemotherapy in locally advanced lung cancer, as reported by this news organization.
 

No benefit seen

Metformin was compared to placebo in the phase 3 CCTG MA.32 trial, conducted in 3,649 patients aged 18-74 years with T1-3 N0-3 M0 breast cancer. All patients were treated with standard therapy and were randomized to receive metformin 850 mg twice daily for 5 years or placebo.

In 2016, “futility was declared in ER/PR-negative patients” after a second interim analysis conducted at 29.6 months’ median follow-up, Dr. Goodwin noted. The intervention was stopped in that group, although blinding and follow-up continued.

After that, the study’s primary analysis focused on the 2,533 ER/PR-positive patients (mean age, 52.7 years; mean body mass index, 28.8; approx. 60% postmenopausal).

Just over half of these patients had T2 tumor stage, and most disease was grade 2 or 3.

In addition, 16.5% (of metformin) and 17.4% (of placebo) patients had HER2-positive disease, with the majority (97%) of all HER2 patients receiving trastuzumab.

There was no difference between the two groups in IDFS events, occurring in 18.5% of patients receiving metformin and 18.3% who received placebo, with most (75.6%) events due to breast cancer (HR, 1.01; P = .92).

There were 131 deaths in the metformin arm and 119 in the placebo arm, with most (75.8%) of the deaths related to breast cancer (HR, 1.10; P = .47).

Other breast cancer outcomes had similar results, including distant disease-free survival (HR, 0.99; P = .94) and breast cancer–free interval (HR, 0.98; P = .87), both of which showed no advantage for metformin.
 

 

 

Possible HER2 advantage

However, the exploratory analysis suggested there may be an advantage for patients with HER2-positive disease, but primarily those who had at least one C allele of a prespecified ATM associated rs11212617 SNP. These patients achieved a higher pathologic complete response rate with metformin than that of those without the allele.

There were 620 patients with HER2-positive disease analyzed, with 99.4% receiving chemotherapy and 96.5% receiving trastuzumab. There were 99 IDFS events, and 47 OS events.

In the entire HER2-positive cohort, patients who received metformin had fewer IDFS events (HR, 0.64; P = .026) compared with the placebo arm. Mortality was lower with metformin (HR for overall survival, 0.53; P = .038).

“Subjects with HER2-positive breast cancer, notably those with at least one C allele of the ATM-associated rs11212617 SNP, experienced improved IDFS and overall survival with metformin,” Dr. Goodwin concluded. “However, no P-value ‘spend’ was allocated to this comparison. As a result, it requires replication in a prospective trial focusing on the HER2-positive population.”
 

More research?

Stephanie Bernik, MD, chief of breast surgery, Mount Sinai West, and associate professor of breast surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was approached by this news organization for an independent comment.

“It has long been known that obesity, which often correlates with diabetes, increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer,” she said.

“This study tried to show that using a medication that helps control insulin levels, even in those without diabetes, might decrease one’s risk of breast cancer,” she said. “Unfortunately, using metformin had no effect on outcomes in this study, even though it has shown promise in other studies. Perhaps more research needs to be carried out to try to pinpoint which mechanisms of action, if any, might be helpful to combat cancer in those with and without diabetes.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Breast Cancer Researcher Foundation, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Canadian Cancer Society, Apotex, Swiss Cancer Research, and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Dr. Goodwin has no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM SABCS 2021

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Supreme Court leaves Texas abortion law in place

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 12/10/2021 - 11:21

 

In a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Dec. 10 that the controversial Texas abortion law that restricts the procedure to women pregnant for 6 weeks or less may continue to be enforced, but allowed for state and federal courts to hear challenges to whether it violates the Constitution.

trekandshoot/thinkstock

As anti-abortion organizations celebrate and abortion rights groups confer on what the decision could mean for women not only in Texas but across the United States, there is another, bigger implication as well.

The Texas law generated a lot of controversy, in part, because it took an unusual approach. In authorizing essentially anyone across the nation to file a lawsuit against a woman in the lone star state who seeks the procedure outside the law, or anyone who assists her -- including healthcare professionals, it opens up the potential for similar legal challenges to other Supreme Court rulings on marriage, guns, and other rights.

The court refused efforts on behalf of abortion providers and the federal government to overturn the law, but said lower courts should determine the law’s ultimate fate. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal members of the court in dissenting.

The ruling allows abortion rights supporters to sue in state court, where a Texas judge on Dec. 9 ruled the law unconstitutional. He stopped short, however, of issuing an injunction against. Abortion rights opponents have vowed to appeal District Judge David Peeples’ ruling.

A timeline on the case

The law took effect on Sept. 1, 2021. The day before, the Supreme Court did not act to put a hold on the law as requested by abortion rights organizations. As a result, many Texas women seeking the procedure after 6 weeks traveled to nearby states. On Oct. 25, the Court agreed to hear a challenge to the law by the Biden Administration.

The Dec. 10 Supreme Court decision to uphold the Texas law contrasts with a general consensus among many legal observers that the justices were receptive to blocking the law, based on questions and issues the judges raised during oral arguments on Nov. 1, 2021.

A separate legal challenge to abortion rights involves a Mississippi law banning the procedure starting at 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Supreme Court justices scheduled oral arguments in that case for Dec. 1, and are expected to issue a ruling in that case in June 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

In a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Dec. 10 that the controversial Texas abortion law that restricts the procedure to women pregnant for 6 weeks or less may continue to be enforced, but allowed for state and federal courts to hear challenges to whether it violates the Constitution.

trekandshoot/thinkstock

As anti-abortion organizations celebrate and abortion rights groups confer on what the decision could mean for women not only in Texas but across the United States, there is another, bigger implication as well.

The Texas law generated a lot of controversy, in part, because it took an unusual approach. In authorizing essentially anyone across the nation to file a lawsuit against a woman in the lone star state who seeks the procedure outside the law, or anyone who assists her -- including healthcare professionals, it opens up the potential for similar legal challenges to other Supreme Court rulings on marriage, guns, and other rights.

The court refused efforts on behalf of abortion providers and the federal government to overturn the law, but said lower courts should determine the law’s ultimate fate. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal members of the court in dissenting.

The ruling allows abortion rights supporters to sue in state court, where a Texas judge on Dec. 9 ruled the law unconstitutional. He stopped short, however, of issuing an injunction against. Abortion rights opponents have vowed to appeal District Judge David Peeples’ ruling.

A timeline on the case

The law took effect on Sept. 1, 2021. The day before, the Supreme Court did not act to put a hold on the law as requested by abortion rights organizations. As a result, many Texas women seeking the procedure after 6 weeks traveled to nearby states. On Oct. 25, the Court agreed to hear a challenge to the law by the Biden Administration.

The Dec. 10 Supreme Court decision to uphold the Texas law contrasts with a general consensus among many legal observers that the justices were receptive to blocking the law, based on questions and issues the judges raised during oral arguments on Nov. 1, 2021.

A separate legal challenge to abortion rights involves a Mississippi law banning the procedure starting at 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Supreme Court justices scheduled oral arguments in that case for Dec. 1, and are expected to issue a ruling in that case in June 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .

 

In a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Dec. 10 that the controversial Texas abortion law that restricts the procedure to women pregnant for 6 weeks or less may continue to be enforced, but allowed for state and federal courts to hear challenges to whether it violates the Constitution.

trekandshoot/thinkstock

As anti-abortion organizations celebrate and abortion rights groups confer on what the decision could mean for women not only in Texas but across the United States, there is another, bigger implication as well.

The Texas law generated a lot of controversy, in part, because it took an unusual approach. In authorizing essentially anyone across the nation to file a lawsuit against a woman in the lone star state who seeks the procedure outside the law, or anyone who assists her -- including healthcare professionals, it opens up the potential for similar legal challenges to other Supreme Court rulings on marriage, guns, and other rights.

The court refused efforts on behalf of abortion providers and the federal government to overturn the law, but said lower courts should determine the law’s ultimate fate. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal members of the court in dissenting.

The ruling allows abortion rights supporters to sue in state court, where a Texas judge on Dec. 9 ruled the law unconstitutional. He stopped short, however, of issuing an injunction against. Abortion rights opponents have vowed to appeal District Judge David Peeples’ ruling.

A timeline on the case

The law took effect on Sept. 1, 2021. The day before, the Supreme Court did not act to put a hold on the law as requested by abortion rights organizations. As a result, many Texas women seeking the procedure after 6 weeks traveled to nearby states. On Oct. 25, the Court agreed to hear a challenge to the law by the Biden Administration.

The Dec. 10 Supreme Court decision to uphold the Texas law contrasts with a general consensus among many legal observers that the justices were receptive to blocking the law, based on questions and issues the judges raised during oral arguments on Nov. 1, 2021.

A separate legal challenge to abortion rights involves a Mississippi law banning the procedure starting at 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Supreme Court justices scheduled oral arguments in that case for Dec. 1, and are expected to issue a ruling in that case in June 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Omicron may require fourth vaccine dose, Pfizer says

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 12/10/2021 - 11:10

The new Omicron variant could make it more likely that people will need a fourth coronavirus vaccine earlier than expected, Pfizer officials said on Dec. 8.

The standard two doses may be less effective against the variant, the company announced earlier in the day, and a booster dose increases neutralizing antibodies.

But the timeline might need to be moved up for a fourth dose. Previously, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, PhD, said another dose might be needed about a year after a third shot. Now the company’s scientists believe that a fourth shot, which targets the Omicron variant, could be required sooner.

“With Omicron, we need to wait and see because we have very little information. We may need it faster,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

“But for right now, the most important thing is that we have winter in front of us,” he said. “From a healthcare perspective, it is important to understand that we need to be well-protected to go through the winter.”

A third dose should provide protection throughout the winter, Dr. Bourla said. That may buy time until the early spring to develop new shots that target Omicron, which Pfizer could have ready by March, according to  Bloomberg News.

As of the afternoon of Dec. 8, 43 people in 19 states had tested positive for the Omicron variant, according to The Associated Press. More than 75% had been vaccinated, and a third had had booster shots. About a third had traveled internationally.

Nearly all of them have had mild symptoms so far, the AP reported, with the most common symptoms being a cough, congestion, and fatigue. One person has been hospitalized, but no deaths have been reported so far.

The CDC is still trying to determine how the Omicron variant may affect the course of the pandemic and whether the strain is more contagious or causes more severe disease.

“What we generally know is the more mutations a variant has, the higher level you need your immunity to be,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, told the AP.

“We want to make sure we bolster everybody’s immunity,” she said. “And that’s really what motivated the decision to expand our guidance [on boosters for all adults].”

The Omicron variant has been reported in 57 countries so far, World Health Organization officials reported Dec. 8, and they expect that number to continue growing.

“Certain features of Omicron, including its global spread and large number of mutations, suggest it could have a major impact on the course of the pandemic. Exactly what that impact will be is still difficult to know,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, the World Health Organization’s director-general, said during a media briefing.

Several studies suggest that Omicron leads to a rapid increase in transmission, he said, though scientists are still trying to understand whether it can “outcompete Delta.” Data from South Africa also suggests a higher risk of reinfection with Omicron, though it appears to cause milder disease than Delta, he noted.

“Even though we still need answers to some crucial questions, we are not defenseless against Omicron or Delta,” he said. “The steps countries take today, and in the coming days and weeks, will determine how Omicron unfolds.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

The new Omicron variant could make it more likely that people will need a fourth coronavirus vaccine earlier than expected, Pfizer officials said on Dec. 8.

The standard two doses may be less effective against the variant, the company announced earlier in the day, and a booster dose increases neutralizing antibodies.

But the timeline might need to be moved up for a fourth dose. Previously, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, PhD, said another dose might be needed about a year after a third shot. Now the company’s scientists believe that a fourth shot, which targets the Omicron variant, could be required sooner.

“With Omicron, we need to wait and see because we have very little information. We may need it faster,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

“But for right now, the most important thing is that we have winter in front of us,” he said. “From a healthcare perspective, it is important to understand that we need to be well-protected to go through the winter.”

A third dose should provide protection throughout the winter, Dr. Bourla said. That may buy time until the early spring to develop new shots that target Omicron, which Pfizer could have ready by March, according to  Bloomberg News.

As of the afternoon of Dec. 8, 43 people in 19 states had tested positive for the Omicron variant, according to The Associated Press. More than 75% had been vaccinated, and a third had had booster shots. About a third had traveled internationally.

Nearly all of them have had mild symptoms so far, the AP reported, with the most common symptoms being a cough, congestion, and fatigue. One person has been hospitalized, but no deaths have been reported so far.

The CDC is still trying to determine how the Omicron variant may affect the course of the pandemic and whether the strain is more contagious or causes more severe disease.

“What we generally know is the more mutations a variant has, the higher level you need your immunity to be,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, told the AP.

“We want to make sure we bolster everybody’s immunity,” she said. “And that’s really what motivated the decision to expand our guidance [on boosters for all adults].”

The Omicron variant has been reported in 57 countries so far, World Health Organization officials reported Dec. 8, and they expect that number to continue growing.

“Certain features of Omicron, including its global spread and large number of mutations, suggest it could have a major impact on the course of the pandemic. Exactly what that impact will be is still difficult to know,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, the World Health Organization’s director-general, said during a media briefing.

Several studies suggest that Omicron leads to a rapid increase in transmission, he said, though scientists are still trying to understand whether it can “outcompete Delta.” Data from South Africa also suggests a higher risk of reinfection with Omicron, though it appears to cause milder disease than Delta, he noted.

“Even though we still need answers to some crucial questions, we are not defenseless against Omicron or Delta,” he said. “The steps countries take today, and in the coming days and weeks, will determine how Omicron unfolds.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The new Omicron variant could make it more likely that people will need a fourth coronavirus vaccine earlier than expected, Pfizer officials said on Dec. 8.

The standard two doses may be less effective against the variant, the company announced earlier in the day, and a booster dose increases neutralizing antibodies.

But the timeline might need to be moved up for a fourth dose. Previously, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, PhD, said another dose might be needed about a year after a third shot. Now the company’s scientists believe that a fourth shot, which targets the Omicron variant, could be required sooner.

“With Omicron, we need to wait and see because we have very little information. We may need it faster,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

“But for right now, the most important thing is that we have winter in front of us,” he said. “From a healthcare perspective, it is important to understand that we need to be well-protected to go through the winter.”

A third dose should provide protection throughout the winter, Dr. Bourla said. That may buy time until the early spring to develop new shots that target Omicron, which Pfizer could have ready by March, according to  Bloomberg News.

As of the afternoon of Dec. 8, 43 people in 19 states had tested positive for the Omicron variant, according to The Associated Press. More than 75% had been vaccinated, and a third had had booster shots. About a third had traveled internationally.

Nearly all of them have had mild symptoms so far, the AP reported, with the most common symptoms being a cough, congestion, and fatigue. One person has been hospitalized, but no deaths have been reported so far.

The CDC is still trying to determine how the Omicron variant may affect the course of the pandemic and whether the strain is more contagious or causes more severe disease.

“What we generally know is the more mutations a variant has, the higher level you need your immunity to be,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, told the AP.

“We want to make sure we bolster everybody’s immunity,” she said. “And that’s really what motivated the decision to expand our guidance [on boosters for all adults].”

The Omicron variant has been reported in 57 countries so far, World Health Organization officials reported Dec. 8, and they expect that number to continue growing.

“Certain features of Omicron, including its global spread and large number of mutations, suggest it could have a major impact on the course of the pandemic. Exactly what that impact will be is still difficult to know,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, the World Health Organization’s director-general, said during a media briefing.

Several studies suggest that Omicron leads to a rapid increase in transmission, he said, though scientists are still trying to understand whether it can “outcompete Delta.” Data from South Africa also suggests a higher risk of reinfection with Omicron, though it appears to cause milder disease than Delta, he noted.

“Even though we still need answers to some crucial questions, we are not defenseless against Omicron or Delta,” he said. “The steps countries take today, and in the coming days and weeks, will determine how Omicron unfolds.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Medical board stops warning docs against giving false COVID information

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 12/13/2021 - 11:25

Under pressure from Republican state lawmakers, the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners has removed from its website its recent policy statement that physicians who spread false information about COVID-19 vaccinations risk suspension or revocation of their medical license.

The board’s 7-3 vote on December 7 to delete the statement followed repeated threats by a powerful state House Republican to dissolve the board and appoint all new members if it did not immediately take it down.

The Tennessee board’s statement was a verbatim restatement of a warning to physicians issued by the Federation of State Medical Boards in July. The federation cited a “dramatic increase” in dissemination of misinformation and disinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine by physicians. It said that’s dangerous because physicians enjoy a high degree of public credibility.

Across the country, state medical licensing boards and state and national medical associations and specialty boards are struggling with how to respond to scientifically baseless public statements about COVID-19 by some physicians, which they say are increasing public confusion, political conflict, and preventable illnesses and deaths.

There have been only a small number of disciplinary actions by medical boards against physicians for spreading false COVID-19 information. Critics say the boards have been weak in responding to these dangerous violations of medical standards. As an example, they cite the State Medical Board of Ohio’s September renewal of the medical license of Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who had previously testified before Ohio lawmakers that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize their recipients and “interface” with cell phone towers.

“I’m not satisfied with what medical boards have done, and we are ramping up our efforts to press the boards to hold these physicians accountable,” said Nick Sawyer, MD, an emergency physician in Sacramento, Calif., who heads a group of healthcare professionals called No License for Disinformation.

Still, Tennessee board members insisted that the board’s policy of disciplining physicians who disseminate false information about COVID-19 vaccinations remains in effect, because state law empowers the board to take action against doctors whose unprofessional behavior endangers the public.

“COVID misinformation and disinformation has caused undue loss of life and jobs and other incalculable loss in our society,” said Melanie Blake, MD, MBA, a Chattanooga internist who’s president of the board. “Physicians have a responsibility to uphold their oath and put forward consensus-driven medical principles.”

But state Rep. John Ragan, the Republican co-chairman of the Joint Government Operations Committee, told the Tennessean newspaper that deleting the statement from the board’s website was equivalent to rescinding the policy. Ragan, who identifies himself as a business consultant and retired Air Force pilot, did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

Blake acknowledged that removing the statement from the board’s website has the potential to confuse Tennessee physicians. And the pressure from GOP lawmakers, who overwhelmingly control the Tennessee legislature, could discourage investigations and disciplinary actions against physicians who allegedly spread COVID-19 misinformation, she added. “It’s hard for me to answer whether this puts a chill on us,” she said.

In September, the Tennessee board, besides approving the general statement that physicians who spread COVID-19 disinformation could face licensure action, also directed the State Department of Health to prioritize investigations of physicians who spread outrageous claims. The board cited statements such as the vaccines are poisonous, cause infertility, contain microchips, or magnetize the body.

In response, the Tennessee General Assembly passed a bill in late October prohibiting the board from implementing any disciplinary process regarding the prescribing of “medication for COVID-19” without review and approval by Ragan’s committee. It’s not clear whether that language covers vaccines.

Last summer, in a similar move, Ragan threatened to dissolve the State Department of Health because its top vaccination official wrote a letter to medical providers explaining that state law allowed them to give COVID-19 vaccinations to minors older than 14 without parental consent. That official, Michelle Fiscus, MD, was fired in July.

Republican Sen. Richard Briggs, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon who voted against the October legislation affecting COVID-related disciplinary actions, criticized his GOP colleagues’ interference in the medical board’s licensure decisions. “The mission of the board is to protect the health and safety of Tennessee citizens, and this was in complete conflict with that mission,” he said.

The Federation of State Medical Boards similarly condemned the Tennessee lawmakers’ moves. “The FSMB strongly opposes restricting a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess potential risk for patient harm,” a spokesman said. “Any interference, politically motivated or otherwise, is unhelpful and dangerous.”

But Arthur Caplan, PhD, a professor of bioethics at NYU School of Medicine, doubts that state medical boards are up to the task of policing disinformation spread by physicians. That’s because they ultimately are under the control of elected state officials, who may force the boards to base policy on ideology rather than science.

He said medical board members in Florida and another GOP-controlled state have told him they do not want to pursue disciplinary actions against physicians for COVID-19 misinformation for fear of political backlash.

Michele Heisler, MD, medical director of Physicians for Human Rights, agreed that the Tennessee situation highlights the looming political threat to the independence of state medical boards. She urged other medical organizations, particularly medical specialty boards, to step in.

“As a profession, we need to take a stance against this,” said Heisler, who’s a professor of internal medicine and public health at the University of Michigan. “Our credibility as physicians is at stake.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Under pressure from Republican state lawmakers, the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners has removed from its website its recent policy statement that physicians who spread false information about COVID-19 vaccinations risk suspension or revocation of their medical license.

The board’s 7-3 vote on December 7 to delete the statement followed repeated threats by a powerful state House Republican to dissolve the board and appoint all new members if it did not immediately take it down.

The Tennessee board’s statement was a verbatim restatement of a warning to physicians issued by the Federation of State Medical Boards in July. The federation cited a “dramatic increase” in dissemination of misinformation and disinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine by physicians. It said that’s dangerous because physicians enjoy a high degree of public credibility.

Across the country, state medical licensing boards and state and national medical associations and specialty boards are struggling with how to respond to scientifically baseless public statements about COVID-19 by some physicians, which they say are increasing public confusion, political conflict, and preventable illnesses and deaths.

There have been only a small number of disciplinary actions by medical boards against physicians for spreading false COVID-19 information. Critics say the boards have been weak in responding to these dangerous violations of medical standards. As an example, they cite the State Medical Board of Ohio’s September renewal of the medical license of Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who had previously testified before Ohio lawmakers that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize their recipients and “interface” with cell phone towers.

“I’m not satisfied with what medical boards have done, and we are ramping up our efforts to press the boards to hold these physicians accountable,” said Nick Sawyer, MD, an emergency physician in Sacramento, Calif., who heads a group of healthcare professionals called No License for Disinformation.

Still, Tennessee board members insisted that the board’s policy of disciplining physicians who disseminate false information about COVID-19 vaccinations remains in effect, because state law empowers the board to take action against doctors whose unprofessional behavior endangers the public.

“COVID misinformation and disinformation has caused undue loss of life and jobs and other incalculable loss in our society,” said Melanie Blake, MD, MBA, a Chattanooga internist who’s president of the board. “Physicians have a responsibility to uphold their oath and put forward consensus-driven medical principles.”

But state Rep. John Ragan, the Republican co-chairman of the Joint Government Operations Committee, told the Tennessean newspaper that deleting the statement from the board’s website was equivalent to rescinding the policy. Ragan, who identifies himself as a business consultant and retired Air Force pilot, did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

Blake acknowledged that removing the statement from the board’s website has the potential to confuse Tennessee physicians. And the pressure from GOP lawmakers, who overwhelmingly control the Tennessee legislature, could discourage investigations and disciplinary actions against physicians who allegedly spread COVID-19 misinformation, she added. “It’s hard for me to answer whether this puts a chill on us,” she said.

In September, the Tennessee board, besides approving the general statement that physicians who spread COVID-19 disinformation could face licensure action, also directed the State Department of Health to prioritize investigations of physicians who spread outrageous claims. The board cited statements such as the vaccines are poisonous, cause infertility, contain microchips, or magnetize the body.

In response, the Tennessee General Assembly passed a bill in late October prohibiting the board from implementing any disciplinary process regarding the prescribing of “medication for COVID-19” without review and approval by Ragan’s committee. It’s not clear whether that language covers vaccines.

Last summer, in a similar move, Ragan threatened to dissolve the State Department of Health because its top vaccination official wrote a letter to medical providers explaining that state law allowed them to give COVID-19 vaccinations to minors older than 14 without parental consent. That official, Michelle Fiscus, MD, was fired in July.

Republican Sen. Richard Briggs, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon who voted against the October legislation affecting COVID-related disciplinary actions, criticized his GOP colleagues’ interference in the medical board’s licensure decisions. “The mission of the board is to protect the health and safety of Tennessee citizens, and this was in complete conflict with that mission,” he said.

The Federation of State Medical Boards similarly condemned the Tennessee lawmakers’ moves. “The FSMB strongly opposes restricting a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess potential risk for patient harm,” a spokesman said. “Any interference, politically motivated or otherwise, is unhelpful and dangerous.”

But Arthur Caplan, PhD, a professor of bioethics at NYU School of Medicine, doubts that state medical boards are up to the task of policing disinformation spread by physicians. That’s because they ultimately are under the control of elected state officials, who may force the boards to base policy on ideology rather than science.

He said medical board members in Florida and another GOP-controlled state have told him they do not want to pursue disciplinary actions against physicians for COVID-19 misinformation for fear of political backlash.

Michele Heisler, MD, medical director of Physicians for Human Rights, agreed that the Tennessee situation highlights the looming political threat to the independence of state medical boards. She urged other medical organizations, particularly medical specialty boards, to step in.

“As a profession, we need to take a stance against this,” said Heisler, who’s a professor of internal medicine and public health at the University of Michigan. “Our credibility as physicians is at stake.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Under pressure from Republican state lawmakers, the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners has removed from its website its recent policy statement that physicians who spread false information about COVID-19 vaccinations risk suspension or revocation of their medical license.

The board’s 7-3 vote on December 7 to delete the statement followed repeated threats by a powerful state House Republican to dissolve the board and appoint all new members if it did not immediately take it down.

The Tennessee board’s statement was a verbatim restatement of a warning to physicians issued by the Federation of State Medical Boards in July. The federation cited a “dramatic increase” in dissemination of misinformation and disinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine by physicians. It said that’s dangerous because physicians enjoy a high degree of public credibility.

Across the country, state medical licensing boards and state and national medical associations and specialty boards are struggling with how to respond to scientifically baseless public statements about COVID-19 by some physicians, which they say are increasing public confusion, political conflict, and preventable illnesses and deaths.

There have been only a small number of disciplinary actions by medical boards against physicians for spreading false COVID-19 information. Critics say the boards have been weak in responding to these dangerous violations of medical standards. As an example, they cite the State Medical Board of Ohio’s September renewal of the medical license of Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who had previously testified before Ohio lawmakers that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize their recipients and “interface” with cell phone towers.

“I’m not satisfied with what medical boards have done, and we are ramping up our efforts to press the boards to hold these physicians accountable,” said Nick Sawyer, MD, an emergency physician in Sacramento, Calif., who heads a group of healthcare professionals called No License for Disinformation.

Still, Tennessee board members insisted that the board’s policy of disciplining physicians who disseminate false information about COVID-19 vaccinations remains in effect, because state law empowers the board to take action against doctors whose unprofessional behavior endangers the public.

“COVID misinformation and disinformation has caused undue loss of life and jobs and other incalculable loss in our society,” said Melanie Blake, MD, MBA, a Chattanooga internist who’s president of the board. “Physicians have a responsibility to uphold their oath and put forward consensus-driven medical principles.”

But state Rep. John Ragan, the Republican co-chairman of the Joint Government Operations Committee, told the Tennessean newspaper that deleting the statement from the board’s website was equivalent to rescinding the policy. Ragan, who identifies himself as a business consultant and retired Air Force pilot, did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

Blake acknowledged that removing the statement from the board’s website has the potential to confuse Tennessee physicians. And the pressure from GOP lawmakers, who overwhelmingly control the Tennessee legislature, could discourage investigations and disciplinary actions against physicians who allegedly spread COVID-19 misinformation, she added. “It’s hard for me to answer whether this puts a chill on us,” she said.

In September, the Tennessee board, besides approving the general statement that physicians who spread COVID-19 disinformation could face licensure action, also directed the State Department of Health to prioritize investigations of physicians who spread outrageous claims. The board cited statements such as the vaccines are poisonous, cause infertility, contain microchips, or magnetize the body.

In response, the Tennessee General Assembly passed a bill in late October prohibiting the board from implementing any disciplinary process regarding the prescribing of “medication for COVID-19” without review and approval by Ragan’s committee. It’s not clear whether that language covers vaccines.

Last summer, in a similar move, Ragan threatened to dissolve the State Department of Health because its top vaccination official wrote a letter to medical providers explaining that state law allowed them to give COVID-19 vaccinations to minors older than 14 without parental consent. That official, Michelle Fiscus, MD, was fired in July.

Republican Sen. Richard Briggs, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon who voted against the October legislation affecting COVID-related disciplinary actions, criticized his GOP colleagues’ interference in the medical board’s licensure decisions. “The mission of the board is to protect the health and safety of Tennessee citizens, and this was in complete conflict with that mission,” he said.

The Federation of State Medical Boards similarly condemned the Tennessee lawmakers’ moves. “The FSMB strongly opposes restricting a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess potential risk for patient harm,” a spokesman said. “Any interference, politically motivated or otherwise, is unhelpful and dangerous.”

But Arthur Caplan, PhD, a professor of bioethics at NYU School of Medicine, doubts that state medical boards are up to the task of policing disinformation spread by physicians. That’s because they ultimately are under the control of elected state officials, who may force the boards to base policy on ideology rather than science.

He said medical board members in Florida and another GOP-controlled state have told him they do not want to pursue disciplinary actions against physicians for COVID-19 misinformation for fear of political backlash.

Michele Heisler, MD, medical director of Physicians for Human Rights, agreed that the Tennessee situation highlights the looming political threat to the independence of state medical boards. She urged other medical organizations, particularly medical specialty boards, to step in.

“As a profession, we need to take a stance against this,” said Heisler, who’s a professor of internal medicine and public health at the University of Michigan. “Our credibility as physicians is at stake.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article