Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 401 posts

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#211

Post by andruby »

Animats wrote: post #43
maxander wrote: post #3

From the results: “Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50%) p value X2 Fischer test p Which sounds like as strong a signal as a study of this scale could hope to show.

Yes, this is encouraging. Management of this disease has improved over the last few months. More people hospitalized are surviving.[1] [1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-09/covid-19...

And it's also summertime in the northern hemisphere, which means less vitamin-D deficiency. Coincidence?

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#212

Post by lrem »

Can someone tell what is the equivalent dose of said calcifedol in regular D3? The article claims 0.532 mg have been used, which seems too large. From [1] I gather it's about 3x more potent, meaning we are talking about equivalent of 1.596mg of D3. Or, 10000% of RDA according to [2]. Is that right?

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5460735/ [2]: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessiona...

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#213

Post by mlyle »

blithedale wrote: post #138
jonplackett wrote: post #114

Surly now it's time to just start giving everyone some free vitamin D. Best case scenario: Less dead people. Worst case scenario: We all have healthier bones.

The worst case scenario isn't 'healthier bones'. It's kidney failure - https://www.cmaj.ca/content/191/14/E390 Or fatal hypercalcemia - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12098-016-2109-z And so on. I frankly think its irresponsible and facile for anyone to suggest there are no downsides to high doses of Vitamin D. This stuff is available OTC and a lot of folks are just gonna dose themselves ad libitum here.

I think a responsible way to look at vitamin D right now is:

- There was an association shown between low serum levels and bad COVID-19 outcomes, but low vitamin D is an indicator of frailty, so it was how much of this relation was causal.

- Now we have some early data that sure makes it look causal and it seems to be a significant effect, but it's not watertight yet.

- We know that a big fraction of us have low vitamin D levels with other health consequences from it.

- Taking a moderate dose of vitamin D now seems like a reasonable hedge: low risk of health consequences, and a decent chance of health benefits even if it doesn't protect us from the pandemic.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#214

Post by gnulinux »

andruby wrote: post #211
Animats wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is encouraging. Management of this disease has improved over the last few months. More people hospitalized are surviving.[1] [1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-09/covid-19...

And it's also summertime in the northern hemisphere, which means less vitamin-D deficiency. Coincidence?

Does it work the same way if you take oral vitamin D supplement? My skin is allergic to the sun (it hurts it bad) but I take daily vit D supplement.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#215

Post by anoraca »

axaxs wrote: post #14
bdamm wrote: post #2

Noteworthy that this is in combination with anti-viral drugs at hospital admission: hydroxychloroquine (400 mg every 12 hours on the first day, and 200 mg every 12 hours for the following 5 days), azithromycin (500 mg orally for 5 days). Regardless, I'm going to assume this means being outside and getting sun is good for me.

I always assumed getting sun(in moderation) was good for oneself. As much as I dislike the heat in general, I always have way more energy after spending a few hours in the sun. I assume(perhaps incorrectly) this was due to a Vitamin D bump. Further, I've known two people in my life who get weird skin issues if they stay out of the sun too long. My wife is one of them! Really weird, considering how damaging the sun is…

UV light kills things that might grow on your skin otherwise, might be related to that.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#216

Post by graeme »

lrem wrote: post #212

Can someone tell what is the equivalent dose of said calcifedol in regular D3? The article claims 0.532 mg have been used, which seems too large. From [1] I gather it's about 3x more potent, meaning we are talking about equivalent of 1.596mg of D3. Or, 10000% of RDA according to [2]. Is that right? [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5460735/ [2]: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfess…

That’s about 60,000 IU? Not necessarily out of line for such interventions. In cases of deficiency doctors will often prescribe weekly doses of 50,000 I believe. Have also seen RCT on vitamin d and the flu where groups where given 250,000-500,000 IU’s in one shot.

....obviously nobody reading this should take anything near those doses without consulting a doctor and without knowing your current blood level, to be clear.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#217

Post by mypalmike »

nautilus12 wrote: post #4

"Don't go outside, you'll get COVID", sounds more and more like horrible advice. Before knowing the virus died in sunlight, I still couldn't fathom why people were avoiding going out to parks and stuff. It was totally non sequitor.

The point of staying at home isn't a matter of inside versus outside. It's about limiting potential exposure to infected people. Unsurprisingly it is very effective.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#218

Post by graeme »

altvali wrote: post #181
zamfi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is strong. Worth noting the limitations though: > Randomization generated groups with comparable percentage of unfavorable risk factors as there was no significant difference in subjects with at least one risk factor, except for high blood pressure and diabetes mellitus, known risk factors for unfavorable disease progression [2], which were more frequent in patients not treated with calcifediol. These are H…

Is BMI a good indicator of obesity, though?

It’s actually pretty decent. It can make errors in the case of people with extreme muscle mass, or very low muscle mass for their size, or the very short, or the very tall.

But for most people, if you’re over 25 bmi you probably could lose some weight. And at a population levels the errors above average out, even in a smaller group.

People make a big deal over the exceptions to it while ignoring that it is broadly accurate and that exceptions are not as common.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#219

Post by zamfi »

Alex3917 wrote: post #187
zamfi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is strong. Worth noting the limitations though: > Randomization generated groups with comparable percentage of unfavorable risk factors as there was no significant difference in subjects with at least one risk factor, except for high blood pressure and diabetes mellitus, known risk factors for unfavorable disease progression [2], which were more frequent in patients not treated with calcifediol. These are H…

> These are HUGE risk factors. Given that Vitamin D deficiency can cause high blood pressure, their decision not to correct for this might be the better option.

Good point. Confounds all the way down!

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#220

Post by [deleted] »

eholk wrote: post #34
DenisM wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for all the skin cancer, right? FWIW, I was told that when the Sun is above 45 degrees over the horizon you will accrue DNA damage, and it stacks up over your entire lifetime. There is no "reset" or "heal", it just adds up. For that reason I'm doing my darnest best to stay in the shade between 9am and 3pm. Or covering clothing.

I'd be really interested to see a comparison of the relative risks between skin cancer and vitamin D deficiency. A lot of what I've read lately suggests we're discovering a lot of benefits of vitamin D that were previously unknown, and some evidence that the recommended vitamin D levels should be higher than they are. For a generation or so we've told people the sun is dangerous because of skin cancer, and obviously…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN