Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#394 Vitamin D and Respiratory Tract Infections: Does the sun’s vitamin chase the cold?


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
Does Vitamin D supplementation prevent acute respiratory tract infections?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
Vitamin D supplementation does not decrease the risk of developing respiratory tract infections, regardless of vitamin D level or age. This is supported by several large randomized controlled trials (RCTs).



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
  • Results statistically significant unless indicated.
  • Four systematic reviews of RCTs, past 5 years.1-4 Most comprehensive (various doses, follow-up 7 weeks-5 years):4
  • Proportion of participants with ≥1 respiratory infection: 4
    • 49% (vitamin D) versus 50% (placebo): not statistically different (40 RCTs, 61,589 participants). 4
    • Largest five RCTs (>1000 events each): No difference.4
    • No effect regardless of baseline vitamin D levels, examples:4
      • Baseline vitamin D <25nmol/L: 73.3% (vitamin D) versus 73.6% (placebo): Not statistically different.
      • Baseline vitamin D >75nmol/L: 25% both groups.
  • Sub-group analyses sometimes show positive effects.
    • Limitations: Risk of spurious results due to multiple comparisons, publication bias (results skewed by small positive trials), improbable results (example: Vitamin D doses 400-1000IU would have benefits but doses 1000-2000IU would not),4 inconsistency within and across systematic reviews (example: subgroup ages 1-15 shows possible benefit but meta-regression analysis does not;4 other review shows no benefit for age group 1-18).1
  • Adverse events: 4
    • Serious: 6.9% versus 7.3%: no difference.
    • Renal stones: 2% both groups.
  • Other systematic reviews similar.1-3

CONTEXT
CONTEXTE
  • Subgroup analyses suggest patients with low vitamin D levels get more respiratory infections; however since supplementation does not improve outcomes, this suggests low vitamin D level is likely a surrogate marker for poor health.4
  • Cows milk in Canada is fortified with Vitamin D.5
  • Guideline (based on low certainty evidence) indicates that supplementation may prevent respiratory infections in children, 6 but accompanying systematic review did not find a significant difference (12 RCTs, 12,951 children aged 1-18).1


Donald HIckman August 6, 2025

It is good to know that Vitamin D does not reduce respiratory infections.

Donald HIckman September 4, 2025

Even though Vit D supplementation does not reduce respiratory infections, at least there are no adverse effects such as increased risk of renal stones.


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#403 A Whiff of Prevention: Treating Male Partners to Reduce Bacterial Vaginosis Recurrence

Does treating male sexual partners of females undergoing treatment for bacterial vaginosis infection decrease recurrence?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#402 Nipple Confusion or Nonsense? Pacifiers and Breastfeeding Duration

In term infants, does restricting early use of pacifiers result in higher rates of breastfeeding up to 6 months of age?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#401 Vape Expectations: Are electronic cigarettes the real deal for smoking cessation? (Update)

Are nicotine-containing e-cigarettes more effective than other available options for smoking cessation?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Émélie Braschi MD PhD CCFP
  • Jennifer Young MD CCFP-EM

1. Shah VP, Nayfeh T, Alsawaf, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2024 Jul 12;109(8):1961-1974.

2. Jia H, Sheng F, Yan Y et al. PLoS One. 2024 May 24;19(5):e0303495.

3. Wang CH, Porta L, Yang TK et al. Nutr J. 2024 Aug 14;23(1):92.

4. Jolliffe DA, Camargo CA, Sluyter JD et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2025 Apr;13(4):307-320.

5. Government of Canada: Fortified foods: Canada’s approach to fortification. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/fortified-food/canadas-approach.html. Accessed on April 3rd-2025.

6. Demay MB, Pittas AG, Bikle DD, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2024 Jul 12;109(8):1907-1947.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.