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

201–210 of 401 posts

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

#201

Post by purec »

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 works for the average person but becomes distorted when you look at athletes, especially those that need to put on more muscle.

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

#202

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

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?

I understand the objections to BMI comparisons at an individual level (though I believe people think themselves a bit too exceptional too often), but as part of a larger study, I would think it'd make a good additional data point, no?

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

#203

Post by ellyagg »

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.

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 respiratory infections.

https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583

And now we have this study. Every study and line of evidence has flaws, which is why you look at the totality of the evidence.

From the evidence I've seen, low vitamin D is a bigger problem in modern societies than vitamin D toxicity. Vitamin D is available OTC and many people use it apparently responsibly. I would expect that to continue with appropriate messaging.

It would be great if we could pursue a consensus on this while it can still make a difference, even in the absence of perfect data. It was a mistake in the early US messaging to downplay the importance of masks even though we didn't have perfect data on it.

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

#204

Post by jacquesm »

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...

Important to note that surviving is something else than 'making a full recovery'. It's an obvious improvement, and it clearly shows in the day-to-day statistics, the ratio of fatalities to positive tests has been - very slowly - dropping.

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

#205

Post by jacquesm »

natcombs wrote: post #25

> parallel pilot randomized open label, double-masked clinical trial. Dumb questions: What is a parallel pilot | what is open label? And Is double-masked the same as double-blind?

These are not dumb questions at all. The really dumb questions are the ones that aren't asked.

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

#206

Post by altvali »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #202
altvali wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is BMI a good indicator of obesity, though?

I understand the objections to BMI comparisons at an individual level (though I believe people think themselves a bit too exceptional too often), but as part of a larger study, I would think it'd make a good additional data point, no?

It most definitely would, but measuring body fat percentage would be better.

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

#208

Post by IAmNotBatman_ »

intotheabyss wrote: post #168
blithedale wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We get 20,000 iu of Vitamin D in like 15 to 30 minutes of sun (if you're pale skinned). Pretty sure taking 5,000 iu every day isn't going to be harmful. Also, fun side note: Vitamin D is produced as an oil on the skin and actually seeps through your skin overtime to enter the bloodstream. So don't take a shower after getting some sun, because you could be washing off your Vitamin D.

Interesting, thank you for sharing. Didn't know that. Just what Dr. Hyman recommends in his book, sounds like it's also levels that build up, and there is seasonal sun so maybe years long 5000-10000 IU supplements is overkill and why he recommends 2000 maintenance.

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

#209

Post by mlyle »

intotheabyss wrote: post #168
blithedale wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We get 20,000 iu of Vitamin D in like 15 to 30 minutes of sun (if you're pale skinned). Pretty sure taking 5,000 iu every day isn't going to be harmful. Also, fun side note: Vitamin D is produced as an oil on the skin and actually seeps through your skin overtime to enter the bloodstream. So don't take a shower after getting some sun, because you could be washing off your Vitamin D.

> We get 20,000 iu of Vitamin D in like 15 to 30 minutes of sun (if you're pale skinned). Pretty sure taking 5,000 iu every day isn't going to be harmful.

Sarcasm: Yah, getting it from sun and from a supplement are biologically identical.

You absolutely can get too much vitamin D from a few thousand IU per day for a sustained time.

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

#210

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

altvali wrote: post #206
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the objections to BMI comparisons at an individual level (though I believe people think themselves a bit too exceptional too often), but as part of a larger study, I would think it'd make a good additional data point, no?

It most definitely would, but measuring body fat percentage would be better.

But then you couldn't easily extrapolate to the population. Well, you could, but you'd require the population to have an understanding of their body fat percentages. BMI isn't ideal, but it's quick and dirty, easy to collect and it should be relatively reliable for the population.
Post reply on HN