CONTEXT: Vitamin D deficiency is associated with insulin resistance and risk of future diabetes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to test whether supplementation with vitamin D to subjects with prediabetes will prevent progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled trial performed in 2008 through 2015. SETTING: The study was conducted at the clinical research unit at a teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Five hundred eleven subjects (mean age 62 y, 314 males) with prediabetes diagnosed with an oral glucose tolerance test as part of the Tromsø Study 2007–2008 were included. A total of 256 were randomized to vitamin D and 255 to placebo. Twenty-nine subjects in the vitamin D and 24 in the placebo group withdrew because of adverse events. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions included vitamin D (cholecalciferol) 20 000 IU/wk vs placebo for 5 years. Annual oral glucose tolerance tests were performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Progression to T2DM was the main outcome measure. Secondary outcomes were change in glucose levels, insulin resistance, serum lipids, and blood pressure. RESULTS: The mean baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level was 60 nmol/L (24 ng/mL). One hundred three in the vitamin D and 112 in the placebo group developed T2DM (hazard risk 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.69–1.18, Cox regression, P = .45, intention to treat analysis). No consistent significant effects on the other outcomes were seen. Subgroup analyses in subjects with low baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D yielded similar results. No serious side effects related to the intervention were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects without vitamin D deficiency, vitamin D supplementation is unlikely to prevent progression from prediabetes to diabetes. Very large studies with inclusion of vitamin D-deficient subjects will probably be needed to show such a putative effect. This study tested if supplementation with vitamin D to subjects with prediabetes will prevent progression to type 2 diabetes (T2DM).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jorde et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: