| Literature DB >> 35433788 |
Xiaoyan Bi1,2,3,4, Fan Liu1,2,3,4, Xiangjun Zhang5, Hongyi Wang1,2,3,4, Zehao Ye1,2,3,4, Ke Yun1,2,3,4, Xiaojie Huang6, Haibo Ding1,2,3,4, Wenqing Geng1,2,3,4, Junjie Xu1,2,3,4,7.
Abstract
Background: The decrease of bone mineral density (BMD) after the intake of Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based drugs in people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) and HIV-negative key populations under pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimen raised concerns. Previous findings on the effects of vitamin D (VD) and calcium supplements and the recovery of BMD loss were inconclusive. The optimal doses of VD and calcium and its supplementary duration remained unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize current evidence on VD and calcium supplements to inform clinical practice.Entities:
Keywords: bone mineral density; calcium; supplement; tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; vitamin D
Year: 2022 PMID: 35433788 PMCID: PMC9008884 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.749948
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Figure 1Possible mechanisms of how TDF caused BMD reduction and how oral vitamin D and calcium supplementation alleviated BMD reduction. TDF, Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; PTH, parathyroid hormone; FGF23, fibroblast growth factor 23; CTX, C-terminal telopeptides; BAP, bone alkaline phosphatase; OC, osteocalcin; 25-(OH)D, 25-hydroxy vitamin D; BMD, bone mineral density.
Figure 2Literature search and study selection process. ** means the records irrelevant to the subject (n = 2538).
Characteristics of the included trials and participants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Havens et al. ( | America | 99 vs. 89 | 179 vs. 33 | 22.0 (21.0–23.0) | HIV-positive | 50,000 IU/4 W | 0 | 48 W | 1.15% (−0.75 to 2.74%) vs. 0.09% (−1.49 to 2.61%) | −0.17% (−2.12 to 1.73%) vs. −0.42% (−1.66 to 0.71%) | A |
| 2 | Overton et al. ( | America | 79 vs. 86 | 149 vs. 16 | 36 (28–47) | HIV-positive | 4,000 IU/D | 1,000 mg | 48 W | −1.23% (−3.73 to 0.20%) vs. −2.94% (−4.87 to −0.94%) | −1.36% (−3.43 to 0.50%) vs. −3.22% (−5.56 to −0.88%) | A |
| 3 | Boontanondha et al. ( | Thailand | 9 vs. 9 | 17 vs. 1 | 30.3 (±8.9) | HIV-positive | 20,000 IU/W | 1,250 mg | 24 W | −3.6% (−4.4 to −2.5%) vs. −4% (−4.9 to −1.3%) | −2.7% (−4.9 to −1.6%) vs. −2.8% (−4.3 to −2.5%) | B |
| 4 | Pornpaisalsakul et al. ( | Thailand | 38 vs. 42 | 66 vs. 14 | 18 (17–20) | HIV-negative | 400 IU/D | 1,200 mg | 24 W | 0.05% (0–0.05%) vs. 0.03% (−0.1 to 0.03%) | NAb | B |
| 5 | Nct ( | America | 79 vs. 86 | 149 vs. 16 | 18–65 | HIV-positive | 4,000 IU/D | 1,000 mg | 48 W | −1.41% (−3.78–0.00%) vs. −2.91% (−4.84 to −1.06%) | −1.46% (−3.16 to −0.40%) vs. −3.19% (−5.12 to −1.02%) | A |
| 6 | Puthanakit et al. ( | Thailand | 24 vs. 24 | NA (49%) | 14.3 (13.0–15.5) | HIV-negative | 400 IU/D | 1,500 mg | 6 M | 0.65 (0.13–1.20) vs. −0.50 (−1.00%to−0.06) | NA | B |
| 7 | Kortenaar et al. ( | Canada | 24 vs. 15 | 39 vs. 0 | 34 (29–40) | HIV-negative | 1,000 IU/D | 0–1,000 mg | 12 M | −2.11% (−2.61 to 1.40%) vs. −2.14% (−4.01 to −1.45%) | −0.89% (−2.76 to −0.09%) vs. −0.69% (−2.23 to 1.58%) | A |
.
.
.
Figure 3Meta-analysis results of vitamin D supplementation on BMD changes.
Subgroup analysis of association between vitamin D supplementation and BMD changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| <30 | 4 | 504 | 79 | 0.46 [0.05, 0.88] | 0.003 | 0.42 |
| 30–40 | 6 | 444 | 26 | 0.38 [0.13, 0.62] | 0.24 | |
| >40 | 2 | 330 | 0 | 0.60 [0.38, 0.82] | 0.57 | |
|
| ||||||
| >70% | 10 | 1,150 | 37 | 0.40 [0.24, 0.55] | 0.11 | 0.48 |
| <70% | 2 | 128 | 89 | 0.82 [−0.33, 1.97] | 0.003 | |
|
| ||||||
| North America | 6 | 784 | 53 | 0.33 [0.11, 0.56] | 0.06 | 0.1 |
| Asia | 3 | 116 | 0 | 0.21 [−0.15, 0.58] | 0.92 | |
| Europe | 3 | 378 | 67 | 0.77 [0.37, 1.16] | 0.05 | |
|
| ||||||
| HIV-1 positive | 8 | 1,072 | 32 | 0.45 [0.29, 0.60] | 0.17 | 0.89 |
| HIV-1 negative (PrEP) | 4 | 206 | 78 | 0.40 [−0.23, 1.03] | 0.003 | |
|
| ||||||
| Spine | 7 | 703 | 54 | 0.49 [0.24, 0.73] | 0.04 | 0.45 |
| Hip | 5 | 575 | 62 | 0.34 [0.04, 0.64] | 0.03 | |
|
| ||||||
| 4,000 IU/D | 4 | 660 | 0 | 0.59 [0.43, 0.74] | 0.003 | 0.02 |
| 1,000–4,000 IU/D | 4 | 412 | 0 | 0.23 [0.03, 0.42] | 0.6 | |
| ≤ 1,000 IU/D | 4 | 206 | 78 | 0.40 [−0.23, 1.03] | 0.95 | |
|
| ||||||
| 24 weeks | 4 | 164 | 72 | 0.51 [−0.15, 1.17] | 0.01 | 0.77 |
| 48 weeks | 8 | 1,114 | 48 | 0.41 [0.24, 0.58] | 0.06 | |
|
| ||||||
| ≤ 1,000 mg/D | 8 | 1,114 | 48 | 0.41 [0.24, 0.58] | 0.06 | 0.77 |
| >1,000 mg/D | 4 | 164 | 72 | 0.51 [−0.15, 1.17] | 0.01 |
SMD, standardized mean difference; PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis.
Figure 4Subgroup analysis of the association between vitamin D supplementation dosing and BMD increase.
Figure 5Correlations among vitamin D supplement, treatment duration, and the changes of BMD (The corresponding articles were included in Supplementary Table 2). (A) Dose-response relationship between vitamin D and calcium supplementation and BMD changes. (B) Dose-response relationship between treatment duration and BMD changes.