Population based mean Vitamin D levels in 19 European Countries & COVID-19 Mortality

  1. Amar Ahmad
  2. Christian Heumann
  3. Raghib Ali
  4. Tim Oliver

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objectives

Reports early in the epidemic linking low mean national Vitamin D level with increased COVID-19 death, and until recently little research on the impact of Vitamin D deficiency on severity of COVID-19, led to this update of the initial report studying mortality up to the end of January 2021.

Design and Setting

Coronavirus pandemic data for 19 European countries were downloaded from Our World in Data, which was last updated on January 24, 2021. Data from March 21, 2020 to January 22, 2021 were included in the statistical analysis. Vitamin-D (25)-HD mean data were collected by literature review. Poisson mixed-effect model was used to model the data.

Results

European countries with Vitamin-D (25)-HD mean less than or equal to 50 have higher COVID-19 death rates as compared with European countries with Vitamin-D (25)-HD mean greater than 50, relative risk of 2.155 (95% CI: 1.068 – 4.347, p-value = 0.032). A statistically significant negative moderate Spearman rank correlation was observed between Vitamin-D (25)-HD mean and the number of COVID-19 deaths for each 14-day period during the COVID-19 pandemic time period.

Conclusions

The observation of the significantly lower COVID-19 mortality rates in countries with lowest annual sun exposure but highest mean Vitamin-D (25)-HD levels provides support for the use of food fortification. The need to consider re-configuring vaccine strategy due to emergence of large number of COVID-19 variants provides an opportunity to undertake such therapeutic randomized control trials.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.11.21253361v2 on medRxiv
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.11.21253361: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.11.21253361v1 on medRxiv