KDIGO 2024 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease.

Vitamin D may modify the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The aim of this review was to examine the association between vitamin D status and incident type 2 diabetes, and the effect of vitamin D supplementation on glycemic outcomes. We performed a systematic review of English-language studies using MEDLINE through February 2011. Longitudinal cohort studies reporting associations between vitamin D status and incident type 2 diabetes, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation, were included. Study characteristics and results were extracted, and study quality was assessed. A total of 8 observational cohort studies and 11 RCTs were included. In meta-analyses of observational studies, vitamin D intake >500 international units (IU)/day decreased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 13% compared with vitamin D intake 25 ng/ml) had a 43% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes (95% confidence interval 24, 57%) compared with those in the lowest group (<14 ng/ml). In post hoc analyses from eight trials among participants with normal glucose tolerance at baseline and in three small underpowered (n=32–62) trials of patients with established type 2 diabetes, there was no effect of vitamin D supplementation on glycemic outcomes. In two trials among patients with baseline glucose intolerance, vitamin D supplementation improved insulin resistance. Vitamin D may play a role in type 2 diabetes; however, to better define the role of vitamin D in the development and progression of type 2 diabetes, high-quality observational studies and RCTs that measure blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and clinically relevant glycemic outcomes are needed.

Vitamin D and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.

Effects of vitamin D and calcium supplementation on pancreatic β cell function, insulin sensitivity, and glycemia in adults at high risk of diabetes: the Calcium and Vitamin D for Diabetes Mellitus (CaDDM) randomized controlled trial

Vitamin D and metabolic health with special reference to the effect of vitamin D on serum lipids

The evidence on the association between baseline vitamin D status and risk of incident hypertension in general populations is limited and has not been reliably quantified. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published prospective studies evaluating the associations of baseline vitamin D status (circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels and dietary vitamin D intake) with risk of hypertension. Eligible studies were identified in a literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to November 2012. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals were calculated using random effects models. Generalized least-squares trend estimation was used to assess dose–response relationships. Of the 2,432 articles reviewed for eligibility, eight unique prospective cohorts with aggregate data on 283,537 non-overlapping participants and 55,816 incident hypertension cases were included. The RRs (95 % CIs) for hypertension in a comparison of extreme thirds of baseline levels of vitamin D were 0.70 (0.58, 0.86) for seven studies that measured blood 25(OH) D levels and 1.00 (0.95, 1.05) for four studies that assessed dietary vitamin D intake. The pooled RR of incident hypertension per 10 ng/mL increment in baseline 25(OH)D levels was 0.88 (0.81, 0.97) in dose–response analysis. Evidence was lacking of heterogeneity among studies that measured blood 25(OH) D levels and those that assessed dietary vitamin D status. Studies are needed to determine whether the association of vitamin D with hypertension represents a causal association and also to determine whether vitamin D therapy may be beneficial in the prevention or the treatment of hypertension.

Vitamin D and risk of future hypertension: meta-analysis of 283,537 participants

Aims/hypothesis
Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels predict future cardiovascular events and are common in patients with type 2 diabetes. We compared the effect of 100,000 and 200,000 IU doses of vitamin D3 on endothelial function, blood pressure and markers of glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

/pdf/the-effect-of-different-doses-of-vitamin-d3-on-markers-of-qfcut9n5xd.pdf

The effect of different doses of vitamin D3 on markers of vascular health in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND
Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease.


METHODS
ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426.


FINDINGS
Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89-1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87-1·20], p=0·77).


INTERPRETATION
In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care.


FUNDING
UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

http://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140673622016579/pdf

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

M. Dryburgh

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

The effect of different doses of vitamin D3 on markers of vascular health in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial