Dataset Information

The association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 in England: A cohort study using UK Biobank.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recent studies indicate that vitamin D supplementation may decrease respiratory tract infections, but the association between vitamin D and COVID-19 is still unclear.

Objective

To explore the association between vitamin D status and infections, hospitalisation, and mortality due to COVID-19.

Methods

We used UK Biobank, a nationwide cohort of 500,000 individuals aged between 40 and 69 years at recruitment between 2006 and 2010. We included people with at least one serum vitamin D test, living in England with linked primary care and inpatient records. The primary exposure was serum vitamin D status measured at recruitment, defined as deficiency at <25 nmol/L, insufficiency at 25-49 nmol/L and sufficiency at ≥ 50 nmol/L. Secondary exposures were self-reported or prescribed vitamin D supplements. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed or clinically diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infections. The secondary outcomes included hospitalisation and mortality due to COVID-19. We used multivariable Cox regression models stratified by summertime months and non-summertime months, adjusting for demographic factors and underlying comorbidities.

Results

We included 307,512 participants (54.9% female, 55.9% over 70 years old) in our analysis. During summertime months, weak evidence existed that the vitamin D deficiency group had a lower hazard of being diagnosed with COVID-19 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77-0.95). During non-summertime, the vitamin D deficiency group had a higher hazard of COVID-19 compared with the vitamin D sufficient group (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.01-1.30). No evidence was found that vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency was associated with either hospitalisation or mortality due to COVID-19 in any time strata.

Conclusion

We found no evidence of an association between historical vitamin D status and hospitalisation or mortality due to COVID-19, along with inconsistent results for any association between vitamin D and diagnosis of COVID-19. However, studies using more recent vitamin D measurements and systematic COVID-19 testing are needed.

SUBMITTER: Lin LY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9170112 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 in England: A cohort study using UK Biobank.

Lin Liang-Yu LY Mulick Amy A Mathur Rohini R Smeeth Liam L Warren-Gash Charlotte C Langan Sinéad M SM

PloS one 20220606 6

<h4>Background</h4>Recent studies indicate that vitamin D supplementation may decrease respiratory tract infections, but the association between vitamin D and COVID-19 is still unclear.<h4>Objective</h4>To explore the association between vitamin D status and infections, hospitalisation, and mortality due to COVID-19.<h4>Methods</h4>We used UK Biobank, a nationwide cohort of 500,000 individuals aged between 40 and 69 years at recruitment between 2006 and 2010. We included people with at least one ...[more]

PMID: 35666716

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInfection with SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) impacts disadvantaged groups most. Lifestyle factors are also associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes. To inform COVID-19 policy and interventions, we explored effect modification of socioeconomic-status (SES) on associations between lifestyle and COVID-19 outcomes.MethodsUsing data from UK-Biobank, a large prospective cohort of 502,536 participants aged 37-73 years recruited between 2006 and 2010, we assigned participants a lifestyle score comprising nine factors. Poisson regression models with penalised splines were used to analyse associations between lifestyle score, deprivation (Townsend), and COVID-19 mortality and severe COVID-19. Associations between each exposure and outcome were examined independently before participants were dichotomised by deprivation to examine exposures jointly. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic/health factors.ResultsOf 343,850 participants (mean age > 60 years) with complete data, 707 (0.21%) died from COVID-19 and 2506 (0.76%) had severe COVID-19. There was evidence of a nonlinear association between lifestyle score and COVID-19 mortality but limited evidence for nonlinearity between lifestyle score and severe COVID-19 and between deprivation and COVID-19 outcomes. Compared with low deprivation, participants in the high deprivation group had higher risk of COVID-19 outcomes across the lifestyle score. There was evidence for an additive interaction between lifestyle score and deprivation. Compared with participants with the healthiest lifestyle score in the low deprivation group, COVID-19 mortality risk ratios (95% CIs) for those with less healthy scores in low versus high deprivation groups were 5.09 (1.39-25.20) and 9.60 (4.70-21.44), respectively. Equivalent figures for severe COVID-19 were 5.17 (2.46-12.01) and 6.02 (4.72-7.71). Alternative SES measures produced similar results.ConclusionsUnhealthy lifestyles are associated with higher risk of adverse COVID-19, but risks are highest in the most disadvantaged, suggesting an additive influence between SES and lifestyle. COVID-19 policy and interventions should consider both lifestyle and SES. The greatest public health benefit from lifestyle focussed COVID-19 policy and interventions is likely to be seen when greatest support for healthy living is provided to the most disadvantaged groups.

Project description:ObjectivesDespite growing evidence suggesting increased COVID-19 mortality among people from ethnic minorities, little is known about milder forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We sought to explore the association between ethnic background and the probability of testing, testing positive, hospitalisation, COVID-19 mortality and vaccination uptake.DesignA multistate cohort analysis. Participants were followed between 8 April 2020 and 30 September 2021.SettingThe UK Biobank, which stores medical data on around half a million people who were recruited between 2006 and 2010.Participants405 541 subjects were eligible for analysis, limited to UK Biobank participants living in England. 23 891 (6%) of participants were non-white.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe associations between ethnic background and testing, testing positive, hospitalisation and COVID-19 mortality were studied using multistate survival analyses. The association with single and double-dose vaccination was also modelled. Multistate models adjusted for age, sex and socioeconomic deprivation were fitted to estimate adjusted HRs (aHR) for each of the multistate transitions.Results18 172 (4.5%) individuals tested positive, 3285 (0.8%) tested negative and then positive, 1490 (6.9% of those tested positive) were hospitalised, and 129 (0.6%) tested positive at the moment of hospital admission (ie, direct hospitalisation). Finally, 662 (17.4%) died after admission. Compared with white participants, Asian participants had an increased risk of negative to positive transition (aHR 1.24 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.52)), testing positive (95% CI 1.44 (1.33 to 1.55)) and direct hospitalisation (1.61 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.03)). Black participants had an increased risk of hospitalisation following a positive test (1.71 (95% CI 1.29 to 2.27)) and direct hospitalisation (1.90 (95% CI 1.51 to 2.39)). Although not the case for Asians (aHR 1.00 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.02)), black participants had a reduced vaccination probability (0.63 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.65)). In contrast, Chinese participants had a reduced risk of testing negative (aHR 0.64 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.73)), of testing positive (0.40 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.57)) and of vaccination (0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.83)).ConclusionsWe identified inequities in testing, vaccination and COVID-19 outcomes according to ethnicity in England. Compared with whites, Asian participants had increased risks of infection and admission, and black participants had almost double hospitalisation risk, and a 40% lower vaccine uptake.

Project description:The effect of deprivation on total bone health status has not been well defined. We examined the relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and poor bone health and falls and we found a significant association. The finding could be beneficial for current public health strategies to minimise disparities in bone health.PurposeSocioeconomic deprivation is associated with many illnesses including increased fracture incidence in older people. However, the effect of deprivation on total bone health status has not been well defined. To examine the relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and poor bone health and falls, we conducted a cross-sectional study using baseline measures from the United Kingdom (UK) Biobank cohort comprising 502,682 participants aged 40-69 years at recruitment during 2006-2010.MethodWe examined four outcomes: 1) low bone mineral density/osteopenia, 2) fall in last year, 3) fracture in the last five years, and 4) fracture from a simple fall in the last five years. To measure socioeconomic deprivation, we used the Townsend index of the participant's residential postcode.ResultsAt baseline, 29% of participants had low bone density (T-score of heel < -1 standard deviation), 20% reported a fall in the previous year, and 10% reported a fracture in the previous five years. Among participants experiencing a fracture, 60% reported the cause as a simple fall. In the multivariable logistic regression model after controlling for other covariates, the odds of a fall, fracture in the last five years, fractures from simple fall, and osteopenia were respectively 1.46 times (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-1.49), 1.26 times (95% CI 1.22-1.30), 1.31 times (95% CI 1.26-1.36) and 1.16 times (95% CI 1.13-1.19) higher for the most deprived compared with the least deprived quantile.ConclusionSocioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with poor bone health and falls. This research could be beneficial to minimise social disparities in bone health.

Project description:BackgroundIt is now well recognised that the risk of severe COVID-19 increases with some long-term conditions (LTCs). However, prior research primarily focuses on individual LTCs and there is a lack of data on the influence of multimorbidity (≥2 LTCs) on the risk of COVID-19. Given the high prevalence of multimorbidity, more detailed understanding of the associations with multimorbidity and COVID-19 would improve risk stratification and help protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19. Here we examine the relationships between multimorbidity, polypharmacy (a proxy of multimorbidity), and COVID-19; and how these differ by sociodemographic, lifestyle, and physiological prognostic factors.Methods and findingsWe studied data from UK Biobank (428,199 participants; aged 37-73; recruited 2006-2010) on self-reported LTCs, medications, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and physiological measures which were linked to COVID-19 test data. Poisson regression models examined risk of COVID-19 by multimorbidity/polypharmacy and effect modification by COVID-19 prognostic factors (age/sex/ethnicity/socioeconomic status/smoking/physical activity/BMI/systolic blood pressure/renal function). 4,498 (1.05%) participants were tested; 1,324 (0.31%) tested positive for COVID-19. Compared with no LTCs, relative risk (RR) of COVID-19 in those with 1 LTC was no higher (RR 1.12 (CI 0.96-1.30)), whereas those with ≥2 LTCs had 48% higher risk; RR 1.48 (1.28-1.71). Compared with no cardiometabolic LTCs, having 1 and ≥2 cardiometabolic LTCs had a higher risk of COVID-19; RR 1.28 (1.12-1.46) and 1.77 (1.46-2.15), respectively. Polypharmacy was associated with a dose response higher risk of COVID-19. All prognostic factors were associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 infection in multimorbidity; being non-white, most socioeconomically deprived, BMI ≥40 kg/m2, and reduced renal function were associated with the highest risk of COVID-19 infection: RR 2.81 (2.09-3.78); 2.79 (2.00-3.90); 2.66 (1.88-3.76); 2.13 (1.46-3.12), respectively. No multiplicative interaction between multimorbidity and prognostic factors was identified. Important limitations include the low proportion of UK Biobank participants with COVID-19 test data (1.05%) and UK Biobank participants being more affluent, healthier and less ethnically diverse than the general population.ConclusionsIncreasing multimorbidity, especially cardiometabolic multimorbidity, and polypharmacy are associated with a higher risk of developing COVID-19. Those with multimorbidity and additional factors, such as non-white ethnicity, are at heightened risk of COVID-19.

Dataset Information

The association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 in England: A cohort study using UK Biobank.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 in England: A cohort study using UK Biobank.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets