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

#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

#400 Vitamin D and Mortality-Don’t bet your life on it!

Does vitamin D supplementation reduce mortality, cardiovascular disease, or cancer in adults?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#399 Turn Down the Heat, Part II! Can fezolinetant improve vasomotor symptoms in menopause?

How safe and effective is fezolinetant for vasomotor symptoms?
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.