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

281–290 of 401 posts

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

#281

Post by elliekelly »

sokoloff wrote: post #165
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.

Vitamin D pills look to be 3-5¢ per day. Hardly seems like something I’d be supportive of creating a “free” supply chain for.

Why? If it’s cheap on a per-dose basis and has the potential for major social benefit (saved lives and avoided healthcare costs) that seems like exactly the sort of program that would be an efficient use of government resources. There’s a clear, measurable, and nearly immediate return on our investment.

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

#282

Post by conorh »

dilippkumar wrote: post #140

Previously on HN, a physician shared some thoughts on treating Vitamin D as a medication and not as a dietary supplement: Part 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24138590 Part 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24261948 To summarize - popping in large doses of Vitamin D is not exactly safe.

Deva is deep into writing part 3 at the moment (the physicians husband here) where she reviews these trials, what they mean and how they should be interpreted. I think she will be finished soon.

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

#283

Post by shajznnckfke »

Reelin wrote: post #263
shajznnckfke wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can believe it. I’m curious what typical body types were like in the hunter/gather societies human evolved in, and whether those are ideal for longevity and quality of life in modern society.

> and whether those are ideal for longevity and quality of life in modern society This seems like the real question to me; I assume pre-agrarian humans were biologically optimizing to survive famine. Not being an expert on the subject, I wonder what sort of tradeoffs are associated with intense exercise regimes (and how the balance ultimately comes out with respect to modern society).

I suppose the low fat / high muscle combination would be unlikely for much of the year in places where it was necessary to store fat for the winter.

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

#285

Post by acqq »

mlyle wrote: post #188
acqq wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The group receiving Calcifediol had more "no bad risk" patients: "At least one prognostic bad risk factor(@) Group receiving Calcifediol: 48% Group without Calcifediol: 61.54%" "@) Patients with at least one of the following risk factors (age >60, previous lung disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease or Immunosuppressed and transplanted patients)." That's what can be c…

Randomization doesn't ensure perfectly balanced groups-- it just ensures that the imbalances of variables you don't measure (including things that change after randomization not related to your intervention, with blinding) are drawn from a distribution that you can apply rigorous statistical reasoning about. Yes, we can see some things are a little unbalanced. But the effect is so massive: we might see 4/5 of the con…

> we might see 4/5 of the control's rate of ICU admissions if the "one prognostic bad risk factor" determined outcome entirely

But we still don't know if the persons with multiple bad risk factors were those who ended with bad outcomes? As far as I understand, if it was like that or not can't be seen from the paper at all, and I can imagine that it could have happened. I would really prefer the more raw data to the tables with the selected means and deviations given.

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

#287

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

mattmanser wrote: post #275
ellyagg wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's useful to note that this study doesn't need to stand on its own as evidence. It contributes to a growing body. As most of you may have already seen, there is a lot of observational evidence that people with low vitamin D have the worst C19 outcomes. Obviously, correlation by itself doesn't mean causation. But it is a hint. On top of the hint, we already have dozens of RCTs that vitamin D supplements suppress res…

We actually have an expert on this comment here quite often, too high Vit D dose can cause problems with calcium: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=devaboone And she's done a series on it: https://www.devaboone.com/post/vitamin-d-part-1-back-to-basi...

Isn't that why the comment about yours said:

"with appropriate messaging"

And, also, you're talking about one expert opinion, perhaps this person doesn't live at 41 degrees south where our both too cold and too dark for half the year or more to get enough sun exposure and peoples diets are often quire poor.

That's why we need to look at the data in aggregate, and have localities / states set their own guidelines and encourage / incentivise doctors to do more testing and symptom analysis.

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

#288

Post by neckardt »

longtimegoogler wrote: post #286

As someone with low vitamin D this kinda sucks. Does anyone know how effective OTC vitamin D is at raising vitamin D levels and what kind of doses to take?

OTC vitamin D is effective, recommended dose is 600IU per day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Recommended_levels

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

#289

Post by graeme »

lrem wrote: post #228
graeme wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cle…

Yup, 60kIU from my understanding. And here I am wondering if the 2kIU I'm doing would have any effect...

Again: those are medical doses, given either very temporarily or in weekly/monthly doses.

2k definitely ha san effect on a daily basis. To really know, there are two things you can do:

1. Get a vitamin d test. Fairly cheap online

2. Use the dminder app to track estimated D over time from supplements and sun exposure

I don’t think I was clear enough in my post: 60,000 is not a daily dose! Higher than 4000 IU daily over a long period can lead to excess, according to Deva Boone, a doctor who was posting here and wrote some articles on this topic.

60,000 is something I’ve read about where 1. A doctor wants to correct a large deficiency, and 2. Judges large, infrequent doses are best. (My guess would be for adherence)

Do not, do not. Do not take anything anywhere in that range on your own. Stick to sub 4,000 for a daily doses, and ideally get a blood test.

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

#290

Post by jp42 »

longtimegoogler wrote: post #286

As someone with low vitamin D this kinda sucks. Does anyone know how effective OTC vitamin D is at raising vitamin D levels and what kind of doses to take?

In my experience, it is certainly effective. I take 2000IU fairly regularly since last few years and it certainly helped to keep vitamin D level slight above minimum required.
Post reply on HN