The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy: a systematic review

Vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy: a systematic review
Vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy: a systematic review
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether or not the current evidence base allows definite conclusions to be made regarding the optimal maternal circulating concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] during pregnancy, and how this might best be achieved.

OBJECTIVES: To answer the following questions: (1) What are the clinical criteria for vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women? (2) What adverse maternal and neonatal health outcomes are associated with low maternal circulating 25(OH)D? (3) Does maternal supplementation with vitamin D in pregnancy lead to an improvement in these outcomes (including assessment of compliance and effectiveness)? (4) What is the optimal type (D2 or D3), dose, regimen and route for vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy? (5) Is supplementation with vitamin D in pregnancy likely to be cost-effective?

METHODS: We performed a systematic review and where possible combined study results using meta-analysis to estimate the combined effect size. Major electronic databases [including Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database] were searched from inception up to June 2012 covering both published and grey literature. Bibliographies of selected papers were hand-searched for additional references. Relevant authors were contacted for any unpublished findings and additional data if necessary. Abstracts were reviewed by two reviewers.

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Subjects: pregnant women or pregnant women and their offspring. Exposure: either assessment of vitamin D status [dietary intake, sunlight exposure, circulating 25(OH)D concentration] or supplementation of participants with vitamin D or food containing vitamin D (e.g. oily fish). Outcomes: offspring - birthweight, birth length, head circumference, bone mass, anthropometry and body composition, risk of asthma and atopy, small for gestational dates, preterm birth, type 1 diabetes mellitus, low birthweight, serum calcium concentration, blood pressure and rickets; mother - pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, risk of caesarean section and bacterial vaginosis.

RESULTS: Seventy-six studies were included. There was considerable heterogeneity between the studies and for most outcomes there was conflicting evidence. The evidence base was insufficient to reliably answer question 1 in relation to biochemical or disease outcomes. For questions 2 and 3, modest positive relationships were identified between maternal 25(OH)D and (1) offspring birthweight in meta-analysis of three observational studies using log-transformed 25(OH)D concentrations after adjustment for potential confounding factors [pooled regression coefficient 5.63?g/10% change maternal 25(OH)D, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 10.16?g], but not in those four studies using natural units, or across intervention studies; (2) offspring cord blood or postnatal calcium concentrations in a meta-analysis of six intervention studies (all found to be at high risk of bias; mean difference 0.05?mmol/l, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.05?mmol/l); and (3) offspring bone mass in observational studies judged to be of good quality, but which did not permit meta-analysis. The evidence base was insufficient to reliably answer questions 4 and 5.

LIMITATIONS: Study methodology varied widely in terms of study design, population used, vitamin D status assessment, exposure measured and outcome definition.

CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base is currently insufficient to support definite clinical recommendations regarding vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy. Although there is modest evidence to support a relationship between maternal 25(OH)D status and offspring birthweight, bone mass and serum calcium concentrations, these findings were limited by their observational nature (birthweight, bone mass) or risk of bias and low quality (calcium concentrations). High-quality randomised trials are now required.
1366-5278
1-190
Harvey, Nicholas C.
ce487fb4-d360-4aac-9d17-9466d6cba145
Holroyd, Christopher
38511e1e-7504-45d0-ab00-eacf22108b7a
Ntani, Georgia
9b009e0a-5ab2-4c6e-a9fd-15a601e92be5
Javaid, Kassim
69bf78c2-9bb1-48b8-8c26-157a823b3421
Cooper, Philip
2d586394-4f46-4d60-a477-7649f48d2ff8
Cole, Zoe
6802e58a-59b3-4518-bb7d-6f721732cd61
Tinati, Tannaze
4d9963ca-ebfa-42fb-9155-1b52619dab60
Godfrey, Keith
0931701e-fe2c-44b5-8f0d-ec5c7477a6fd
Dennison, Elaine
ee647287-edb4-4392-8361-e59fd505b1d1
Bishop, Nicholas J.
27b4739b-c34e-4db5-af30-10ef7e25bfd7
Baird, Janis
f4bf2039-6118-436f-ab69-df8b4d17f824
Cooper, Cyrus
e05f5612-b493-4273-9b71-9e0ce32bdad6
Moon, Rebecca
954fb3ed-9934-4649-886d-f65944985a6b
Harvey, Nicholas C.
ce487fb4-d360-4aac-9d17-9466d6cba145
Holroyd, Christopher
38511e1e-7504-45d0-ab00-eacf22108b7a
Ntani, Georgia
9b009e0a-5ab2-4c6e-a9fd-15a601e92be5
Javaid, Kassim
69bf78c2-9bb1-48b8-8c26-157a823b3421
Cooper, Philip
2d586394-4f46-4d60-a477-7649f48d2ff8
Moon, Rebecca
954fb3ed-9934-4649-886d-f65944985a6b
Cole, Zoe
6802e58a-59b3-4518-bb7d-6f721732cd61
Tinati, Tannaze
4d9963ca-ebfa-42fb-9155-1b52619dab60
Godfrey, Keith
0931701e-fe2c-44b5-8f0d-ec5c7477a6fd
Dennison, Elaine
ee647287-edb4-4392-8361-e59fd505b1d1
Bishop, Nicholas J.
27b4739b-c34e-4db5-af30-10ef7e25bfd7
Baird, Janis
f4bf2039-6118-436f-ab69-df8b4d17f824
Cooper, Cyrus
e05f5612-b493-4273-9b71-9e0ce32bdad6

Harvey, Nicholas C., Holroyd, Christopher, Ntani, Georgia, Javaid, Kassim, Cooper, Philip, Cole, Zoe, Tinati, Tannaze, Godfrey, Keith, Dennison, Elaine, Bishop, Nicholas J., Baird, Janis and Cooper, Cyrus , Moon, Rebecca (ed.) (2014) Vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 18 (45), 1-190. (doi:10.3310/hta18450). (PMID:25025896)

Record type: Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether or not the current evidence base allows definite conclusions to be made regarding the optimal maternal circulating concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] during pregnancy, and how this might best be achieved.

OBJECTIVES: To answer the following questions: (1) What are the clinical criteria for vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women? (2) What adverse maternal and neonatal health outcomes are associated with low maternal circulating 25(OH)D? (3) Does maternal supplementation with vitamin D in pregnancy lead to an improvement in these outcomes (including assessment of compliance and effectiveness)? (4) What is the optimal type (D2 or D3), dose, regimen and route for vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy? (5) Is supplementation with vitamin D in pregnancy likely to be cost-effective?

METHODS: We performed a systematic review and where possible combined study results using meta-analysis to estimate the combined effect size. Major electronic databases [including Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database] were searched from inception up to June 2012 covering both published and grey literature. Bibliographies of selected papers were hand-searched for additional references. Relevant authors were contacted for any unpublished findings and additional data if necessary. Abstracts were reviewed by two reviewers.

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Subjects: pregnant women or pregnant women and their offspring. Exposure: either assessment of vitamin D status [dietary intake, sunlight exposure, circulating 25(OH)D concentration] or supplementation of participants with vitamin D or food containing vitamin D (e.g. oily fish). Outcomes: offspring - birthweight, birth length, head circumference, bone mass, anthropometry and body composition, risk of asthma and atopy, small for gestational dates, preterm birth, type 1 diabetes mellitus, low birthweight, serum calcium concentration, blood pressure and rickets; mother - pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, risk of caesarean section and bacterial vaginosis.

RESULTS: Seventy-six studies were included. There was considerable heterogeneity between the studies and for most outcomes there was conflicting evidence. The evidence base was insufficient to reliably answer question 1 in relation to biochemical or disease outcomes. For questions 2 and 3, modest positive relationships were identified between maternal 25(OH)D and (1) offspring birthweight in meta-analysis of three observational studies using log-transformed 25(OH)D concentrations after adjustment for potential confounding factors [pooled regression coefficient 5.63?g/10% change maternal 25(OH)D, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 10.16?g], but not in those four studies using natural units, or across intervention studies; (2) offspring cord blood or postnatal calcium concentrations in a meta-analysis of six intervention studies (all found to be at high risk of bias; mean difference 0.05?mmol/l, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.05?mmol/l); and (3) offspring bone mass in observational studies judged to be of good quality, but which did not permit meta-analysis. The evidence base was insufficient to reliably answer questions 4 and 5.

LIMITATIONS: Study methodology varied widely in terms of study design, population used, vitamin D status assessment, exposure measured and outcome definition.

CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base is currently insufficient to support definite clinical recommendations regarding vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy. Although there is modest evidence to support a relationship between maternal 25(OH)D status and offspring birthweight, bone mass and serum calcium concentrations, these findings were limited by their observational nature (birthweight, bone mass) or risk of bias and low quality (calcium concentrations). High-quality randomised trials are now required.

Text
103304 HTA VIT D SR report final submitted.docx - Accepted Manuscript
Download (1MB)

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: July 2014
Published date: July 2014
Organisations: Faculty of Medicine

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 367082
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/367082
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: 1486f6e8-baab-493c-aefc-8542ca0115fd
ORCID for Nicholas C. Harvey: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-8194-2512
ORCID for Keith Godfrey: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4643-0618
ORCID for Elaine Dennison: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-3048-4961
ORCID for Janis Baird: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4039-4361
ORCID for Cyrus Cooper: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3510-0709

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 28 Jul 2014 12:01
Last modified: 18 Feb 2021 17:02

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Christopher Holroyd
Author: Georgia Ntani
Author: Kassim Javaid
Author: Philip Cooper
Editor: Rebecca Moon
Author: Zoe Cole
Author: Tannaze Tinati
Author: Keith Godfrey ORCID iD
Author: Elaine Dennison ORCID iD
Author: Nicholas J. Bishop
Author: Janis Baird ORCID iD
Author: Cyrus Cooper ORCID iD

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×