Vitamin D supplementation for women during pregnancy
Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Published Online: 14 JAN 2016
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008873.pub3
Luz Maria De-Regil1, Cristina Palacios2, Lia K Lombardo3, Juan Pablo Peña-Rosas4,*
1) Included trials which used far too little vitamin D, thus swamping out the results of good trials
- 5 used 200 IU
- 2 used 400 IU
- 1 used 800 IU
- 8 used a TOTAL of less than 56,000 IU during entire pregnancy
2) Excluded trials which used an amount of vitamin D which varied with need
such as Wagner 2010b; Wagner 2010 and others
3) Excluded Wagner 2013 - which had not yet been published (but had been presented)
see Preterm birth rate reduced 57 percent by Vitamin D – Nov 2015
4) None of the studies supplemented before 20th week of pregnancy
5) Ignored initial vitamin D levels
6) Ignored if vitamin D levels actually increased
7) Ignored how much Calcium was used
Even with those limitations they managed to find that vitamin D decreased
- Preterm birth - 63% reduction
- Low birth weight - 60% reduction
- - - - - - - - - -
I wondered how the review came to such poor conclusions, so I bought a copy of the PDF
They made mistakes similar to many meta-anlyses and other Cochrane Reviews
An example of a meta-analysis which does not have errors is on Depression
See also VitaminDWiki
Healthy pregnancies need lots of vitamin D has the following summary
Most were taking 2,000 to 7,000 IU daily for >50% of pregnancy
Click on hyperlinks for details
Problem | Vit. D Reduces | Evidence |
| 0. Chance of not conceiving | 3.4 times | Observe |
| 1. Miscarriage | 2.5 times | Observe |
| 2. Pre-eclampsia | 3.6 times | RCT |
| 3. Gestational Diabetes | 3 times | RCT |
| 4. Good 2nd trimester sleep quality | 3.5 times | Observe |
| 5. Premature birth | 2 times | RCT |
| 6. C-section - unplanned | 1.6 times | Observe |
| Stillbirth - OMEGA-3 | 4 times | RCT - Omega-3 |
| 7. Depression AFTER pregnancy | 1.4 times | RCT |
| 8. Small for Gestational Age | 1.6 times | meta-analysis |
| 9. Infant height, weight, head size within normal limits | RCT | |
| 10. Childhood Wheezing | 1.3 times | RCT |
| 11. Additional child is Autistic | 4 times | Intervention |
| 12.Young adult Multiple Sclerosis | 1.9 times | Observe |
| 13. Preeclampsia in young adult | 3.5 times | RCT |
| 14. Good motor skills @ age 3 | 1.4 times | Observe |
| 15. Childhood Mite allergy | 5 times | RCT |
| 16. Childhood Respiratory Tract visits | 2.5 times | RCT |
RCT = Randomized Controlled Trial
Pre-mature births reduced 43 percent by Vitamin D – Cochrane review Feb 2016 later review of report on VitaminDWiki
Background
Vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency is thought to be common among pregnant women. Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy has been suggested as an intervention to protect against adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Objectives
To examine whether oral supplements with vitamin D alone or in combination with calcium or other vitamins and minerals given to women during pregnancy can safely improve maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 February 2015), the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (31 January 2015), the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (28 January 2015) and also contacted relevant organisations (31 January 2015).
Selection criteria
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials with randomisation at either individual or cluster level, evaluating the effect of supplementation with vitamin D alone or in combination with other micronutrients for women during pregnancy.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently i) assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria ii) extracted data from included studies, and iii) assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
Main results
In this updated review we included 15 trials assessing a total of 2833 women, excluded 27 trials, and 23 trials are still ongoing or unpublished. Nine trials compared the effects of vitamin D alone versus no supplementation or a placebo and six trials compared the effects of vitamin D and calcium with no supplementation. Risk of bias in the majority of trials was unclear and many studies were at high risk of bias for blinding and attrition rates.
Vitamin D alone versus no supplementation or a placebo
Data from seven trials involving 868 women consistently show that women who received vitamin D supplements alone, particularly on a daily basis, had higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D than those receiving no intervention or placebo, but this response was highly heterogeneous. Also, data from two trials involving 219 women suggest that women who received vitamin D supplements may have a lower risk of pre-eclampsia than those receiving no intervention or placebo (8.9% versus 15.5%; risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.05, low quality). Data from two trials involving 219 women suggest a similar risk of gestational diabetes among those taking vitamin D supplements or no intervention/placebo (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.05, 3.45, very low quality). There were no clear differences in adverse effects, with only one reported case of nephritic syndrome in the control group in one study (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; one trial, 135 women, low quality). Given the scarcity of data for this outcome, no firm conclusions can be drawn. No other adverse effects were reported in any of the other studies.
With respect to infant outcomes, data from three trials involving 477 women suggest that vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy reduces the risk preterm birth compared to no intervention or placebo (8.9% versus 15.5%; RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.93, moderate quality). Data from three trials involving 493 women also suggest that women who receive vitamin D supplements during pregnancy less frequently had a baby with a birthweight below 2500 g than those receiving no intervention or placebo (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67, moderate quality).
In terms of other outcomes, there were no clear differences in
- caesarean section (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.31; two trials; 312 women);
- stillbirths (RR 0.35 95% CI 0.06, 1.99; three trials, 540 women); or
- neonatal deaths (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.04, 1.67; two trials, 282 women).
There was some indication that vitamin D supplementation increases infant length (mean difference (MD) 0.70, 95% CI -0.02 to 1.43; four trials, 638 infants) and head circumference at birth (MD 0.43, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.83; four trials, 638 women).
Vitamin D and calcium versus no supplementation or a placebo
Women who received vitamin D with calcium had a lower risk of pre-eclampsia than those not receiving any intervention (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.80; three trials; 1114 women, moderate quality), but also an increased risk of preterm birth (RR 1.57; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.43, three studies, 798 women, moderate quality). Maternal vitamin D concentration at term, gestational diabetes, adverse effects and low birthweight were not reported in any trial or reported only by one study.
Authors' conclusions
New studies have provided more evidence on the effects of supplementing pregnant women with vitamin D alone or with calcium on pregnancy outcomes. Supplementing pregnant women with vitamin D in a single or continued dose increases serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D at term and may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia, low birthweight and preterm birth. However, when vitamin D and calcium are combined, the risk of preterm birth is increased. The clinical significance of the increased serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations is still unclear. In light of this, these results need to be interpreted with caution. Data on adverse effects were lacking in all studies.
The evidence on whether vitamin D supplementation should be given as a part of routine antenatal care to all women to improve maternal and infant outcomes remains unclear. While there is some indication that vitamin D supplementation could reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia and increase length and head circumference at birth, further rigorous randomised trials are required to confirm these effects.
Plain language summary: Vitamin D supplementation for women during pregnancy
Vitamin D is produced by the human body from exposure to sunlight and can also be consumed from foods such as fish-liver oils, fatty fish, mushrooms, egg yolks, and liver. Vitamin D has many functions in the body; it helps maintain bone integrity and calcium homeostasis.
During pregnancy, vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency may develop. Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy has been suggested to safely improve pregnancy and infant outcomes. This review included 15 randomised controlled trials involving 2833 women. Nine trials compared the effects of vitamin D alone with no supplementation or a placebo and six trials compared the effects of vitamin D and calcium with no supplementation.
The results show that the provision of vitamin D supplements during pregnancy improves the women’s vitamin D levels, as measured by 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations at term and may reduce the risk of delivering a baby prematurely (less than 37 weeks of gestation), result in a lower risk of high blood pressure in women and reduce the risk of a low birthweight baby (less than 2500 g). However, it appears that when vitamin D and calcium are combined, the risk of preterm birth is increased. Data on adverse effects for the mother were not well reported.
The clinical significance of the increase in women’s vitamin D levels is unclear and results should be interpreted with caution, as only a few small trials of low quality assessed these outcomes.
With the available evidence, it is unclear whether vitamin D supplementation should be given as part of routine antenatal care to improve maternal and infant outcomes. While there is some indication that vitamin D supplementation could reduce the risk of high blood pressure and increase length and head circumference at birth, further rigorous randomised trials are required to confirm these effects. Currently, the number of high-quality trials with large sample sizes and outcomes reported is too limited to draw definite conclusions on its usefulness and safety.