Wen-Chien Yang, Ramaa Chitale, Karen M O'Callaghan, Christopher R Sudfeld, Emily R Smith
{"title":"孕期补充维生素 D 对孕产妇、新生儿和婴儿健康的影响:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Wen-Chien Yang, Ramaa Chitale, Karen M O'Callaghan, Christopher R Sudfeld, Emily R Smith","doi":"10.1093/nutrit/nuae065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Previous research linked vitamin D deficiency in pregnancy to adverse pregnancy outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Update a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy, identify sources of heterogeneity between trials, and describe evidence gaps precluding a clinical recommendation.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>The MEDLINE, PubMed, Europe PMC, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched. Articles were included that reported on RCTs that included pregnant women given vitamin D supplements as compared with placebo, no intervention, or active control (≤600 IU d-1). Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences were pooled for 38 maternal, birth, and infant outcomes, using random effects models. Subgroup analyses examined effect heterogeneity. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Included articles reported on a total of 66 trials (n = 17 276 participants).</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>The median vitamin D supplementation dose was 2000 IU d-1 (range: 400-60 000); 37 trials used placebo. Antenatal vitamin D supplementation had no effect on the risk of preeclampsia (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.43-1.53]; n = 6 trials and 1483 participants), potentially protected against gestational diabetes mellitus (RR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.49-0.86; n = 12 trials and 1992 participants), and increased infant birth weight by 53 g (95% CI, 16-90; n = 40 trials and 9954 participants). No effect of vitamin D on the risk of preterm birth, small-for-gestational age, or low birth weight infants was found. A total of 25 trials had at least 1 domain at high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Additional studies among the general pregnant population are not needed, given the many existing trials. Instead, high-quality RCTs among populations with low vitamin D status or at greater risk of key outcomes are needed. Benefits of supplementation in pregnancy remain uncertain because current evidence has high heterogeneity, including variation in study context, baseline and achieved end-line 25-hydroxyvitamin D level, and studies with high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022350057.</p>","PeriodicalId":19469,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation During Pregnancy on Maternal, Neonatal, and Infant Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Wen-Chien Yang, Ramaa Chitale, Karen M O'Callaghan, Christopher R Sudfeld, Emily R Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/nutrit/nuae065\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Previous research linked vitamin D deficiency in pregnancy to adverse pregnancy outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Update a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy, identify sources of heterogeneity between trials, and describe evidence gaps precluding a clinical recommendation.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>The MEDLINE, PubMed, Europe PMC, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched. Articles were included that reported on RCTs that included pregnant women given vitamin D supplements as compared with placebo, no intervention, or active control (≤600 IU d-1). Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences were pooled for 38 maternal, birth, and infant outcomes, using random effects models. Subgroup analyses examined effect heterogeneity. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Included articles reported on a total of 66 trials (n = 17 276 participants).</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>The median vitamin D supplementation dose was 2000 IU d-1 (range: 400-60 000); 37 trials used placebo. Antenatal vitamin D supplementation had no effect on the risk of preeclampsia (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.43-1.53]; n = 6 trials and 1483 participants), potentially protected against gestational diabetes mellitus (RR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.49-0.86; n = 12 trials and 1992 participants), and increased infant birth weight by 53 g (95% CI, 16-90; n = 40 trials and 9954 participants). No effect of vitamin D on the risk of preterm birth, small-for-gestational age, or low birth weight infants was found. A total of 25 trials had at least 1 domain at high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Additional studies among the general pregnant population are not needed, given the many existing trials. Instead, high-quality RCTs among populations with low vitamin D status or at greater risk of key outcomes are needed. Benefits of supplementation in pregnancy remain uncertain because current evidence has high heterogeneity, including variation in study context, baseline and achieved end-line 25-hydroxyvitamin D level, and studies with high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022350057.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19469,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nutrition reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nutrition reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuae065\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuae065","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:以往的研究表明,孕期维生素D缺乏与不良妊娠结局有关:更新2017年关于孕期补充维生素D效果的随机对照试验(RCTs)的系统综述和荟萃分析,确定试验间异质性的来源,并描述排除临床建议的证据缺口:数据来源:检索了 MEDLINE、PubMed、Europe PMC、Scopus、Cochrane 系统综述数据库、Web of Science 和 CINAHL 数据库。纳入的文章报告了孕妇服用维生素 D 补充剂与安慰剂、无干预或活性对照(≤600 IU d-1)进行比较的 RCT。采用随机效应模型对 38 种母体、出生和婴儿结果的风险比 (RR) 和平均差异进行了汇总。亚组分析检验了效应异质性。数据提取采用了 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具:数据分析:维生素 D 补充剂剂量的中位数为 2000 IU d-1(范围:400-60 000);37 项试验使用了安慰剂。产前补充维生素 D 对先兆子痫的风险没有影响(RR,0.81 [95% CI,0.43-1.53];n = 6 项试验和 1483 名参与者),可预防妊娠糖尿病(RR,0.65 [95% CI,0.49-0.86;n = 12 项试验和 1992 名参与者),婴儿出生体重增加 53 克(95% CI,16-90;n = 40 项试验和 9954 名参与者)。没有发现维生素 D 对早产儿、小于胎龄儿或低出生体重儿的风险有任何影响。共有 25 项试验至少有一个领域存在高偏倚风险:结论:鉴于现有的许多试验,不需要在普通孕妇人群中开展更多的研究。结论:鉴于现有的许多试验,不需要在普通孕妇人群中进行更多的研究,而是需要在维生素 D 水平较低或主要结果风险较高的人群中进行高质量的 RCT 研究。妊娠期补充维生素 D 的益处仍不确定,因为目前的证据存在高度异质性,包括研究背景、基线和达到的终点 25- 羟基维生素 D 水平的差异,以及存在高偏倚风险的研究:系统综述注册:PROSPERO 注册号系统综述注册:PROSPERO 注册编号:CRD42022350057。
The Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation During Pregnancy on Maternal, Neonatal, and Infant Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Context: Previous research linked vitamin D deficiency in pregnancy to adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Objective: Update a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy, identify sources of heterogeneity between trials, and describe evidence gaps precluding a clinical recommendation.
Data sources: The MEDLINE, PubMed, Europe PMC, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched. Articles were included that reported on RCTs that included pregnant women given vitamin D supplements as compared with placebo, no intervention, or active control (≤600 IU d-1). Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences were pooled for 38 maternal, birth, and infant outcomes, using random effects models. Subgroup analyses examined effect heterogeneity. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used.
Data extraction: Included articles reported on a total of 66 trials (n = 17 276 participants).
Data analysis: The median vitamin D supplementation dose was 2000 IU d-1 (range: 400-60 000); 37 trials used placebo. Antenatal vitamin D supplementation had no effect on the risk of preeclampsia (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.43-1.53]; n = 6 trials and 1483 participants), potentially protected against gestational diabetes mellitus (RR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.49-0.86; n = 12 trials and 1992 participants), and increased infant birth weight by 53 g (95% CI, 16-90; n = 40 trials and 9954 participants). No effect of vitamin D on the risk of preterm birth, small-for-gestational age, or low birth weight infants was found. A total of 25 trials had at least 1 domain at high risk of bias.
Conclusion: Additional studies among the general pregnant population are not needed, given the many existing trials. Instead, high-quality RCTs among populations with low vitamin D status or at greater risk of key outcomes are needed. Benefits of supplementation in pregnancy remain uncertain because current evidence has high heterogeneity, including variation in study context, baseline and achieved end-line 25-hydroxyvitamin D level, and studies with high risk of bias.
期刊介绍:
Nutrition Reviews is a highly cited, monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that specializes in the publication of authoritative and critical literature reviews on current and emerging topics in nutrition science, food science, clinical nutrition, and nutrition policy. Readers of Nutrition Reviews include nutrition scientists, biomedical researchers, clinical and dietetic practitioners, and advanced students of nutrition.