Objectives To assess the overall effect of vitamin D supplementation on risk of acute respiratory tract infection, and to identify factors modifying this effect. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) from randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry from inception to December 2015. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trials of supplementation with vitamin D₃ or vitamin D₂ of any duration were eligible for inclusion if they had been approved by a research ethics committee and if data on incidence of acute respiratory tract infection were collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Results 25 eligible randomised controlled trials (total 11 321 participants, aged 0 to 95 years) were identified. IPD were obtained for 10 933 (96.6%) participants. Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory tract infection among all participants (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.96; P for heterogeneity <0.001). In subgroup analysis, protective effects were seen in those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D without additional bolus doses (adjusted odds ratio 0.81, 0.72 to 0.91) but not in those receiving one or more bolus doses (adjusted odds ratio 0.97, 0.86 to 1.10; P for interaction=0.05). Among those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D, protective effects were stronger in those with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels <25 nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 0.17 to 0.53) than in those with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥25 nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.75, 0.60 to 0.95; P for interaction=0.006). Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 0.80 to 1.20, P=0.83). The body of evidence contributing to these analyses was assessed as being of high quality. Conclusions Vitamin D supplementation was safe and it protected against acute respiratory tract infection overall. Patients who were very vitamin D deficient and those not receiving bolus doses experienced the most benefit. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014013953.

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the potential of vitamin D to prevent acute respiratory infections have yielded mixed results. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis has the potential to identify factors that may explain this heterogeneity. Objectives: To assess the overall effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to identify factors modifying this effect. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) registry. Study selection: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of supplementation with vitamin D₃ or vitamin D₂ of any duration having incidence of acute respiratory infection as a prespecified efficacy outcome were selected. Study appraisal: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool to assess sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors, completeness of outcome data, evidence of selective outcome reporting and other potential threats to validity. Results: We identified 25 eligible RCTs (a total of 11,321 participants, aged from 0 to 95 years). IPD were obtained for 10,933 out of 11,321 (96.6%) participants. Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of ARI among all participants [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.96; heterogeneity p < 0.001]. Subgroup analysis revealed that protective effects were seen in individuals receiving daily or weekly vitamin D without additional bolus doses (aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.91), but not in those receiving one or more bolus doses (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.10; p = 0.05). Among those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D, protective effects of vitamin D were stronger in individuals with a baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration of < 25 nmol/l (aOR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53) than in those with a baseline 25(OH)D concentration of ≥ 25 nmol/l (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95; p = 0.006). Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.20; p = 0.83). The body of evidence contributing to these analyses was assessed as being of high quality. Limitations: Our study had limited power to detect the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of upper versus lower respiratory infection, analysed separately. Conclusions: Vitamin D supplementation was safe, and it protected against ARIs overall. Very deficient individuals and those not receiving bolus doses experienced the benefit. Incorporation of additional IPD from ongoing trials in the field has the potential to increase statistical power for analyses of secondary outcomes. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013953. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus has been associated with an excess risk of pancreatic cancer, but the magnitude of the risk and the time–risk relationship are unclear, and there is limited information on the role of antidiabetic medications. We analyzed individual-level data from 15 case–control studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium, including 8305 cases and 13 987 controls. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were estimated from multiple logistic regression models, adjusted for relevant covariates. Overall, 1155 (15%) cases and 1087 (8%) controls reported a diagnosis of diabetes 2 or more years before cancer diagnosis (or interview, for controls), corresponding to an OR of 1.90 (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.72–2.09). Consistent risk estimates were observed across strata of selected covariates, including body mass index and tobacco smoking. Pancreatic cancer risk decreased with duration of diabetes, but a significant excess risk was still evident 20 or more years after diabetes diagnosis (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03–1.63). Among diabetics, long duration of oral antidiabetic use was associated with a decreased pancreatic cancer risk (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14–0.69, for ≥15 years). Conversely, insulin use was associated with a pancreatic cancer risk in the short term (OR 5.60, 95% CI 3.75–8.35, for <5 years), but not for longer duration of use (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53–1.70, for ≥15 years). This study provides the most definitive quantification to date of an excess risk of pancreatic cancer among diabetics. It also shows that a 30% excess risk persists for more than two decades after diabetes diagnosis, thus supporting a causal role of diabetes in pancreatic cancer. Oral antidiabetics may decrease the risk of pancreatic cancer, whereas insulin showed an inconsistent duration–risk relationship.

Alison Klein and colleagues report a genome-wide meta-analysis to identify loci associated with pancreatic cancer risk. They identify associated variants at 17q25.1, 3q29, 7p13 and 2p13.3. Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the developed world1. Both inherited high-penetrance mutations in BRCA2 (ref. 2), ATM3, PALB2 (ref. 4), BRCA1 (ref. 5), STK11 (ref. 6), CDKN2A7 and mismatch-repair genes8 and low-penetrance loci are associated with increased risk9,10,11,12. To identify new risk loci, we performed a genome-wide association study on 9,925 pancreatic cancer cases and 11,569 controls, including 4,164 newly genotyped cases and 3,792 controls in 9 studies from North America, Central Europe and Australia. We identified three newly associated regions: 17q25.1 (LINC00673, rs11655237, odds ratio (OR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.19–1.34, P = 1.42 × 10−14), 7p13 (SUGCT, rs17688601, OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.84–0.92, P = 1.41 × 10−8) and 3q29 (TP63, rs9854771, OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.85–0.93, P = 2.35 × 10−8). We detected significant association at 2p13.3 (ETAA1, rs1486134, OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.09–1.19, P = 3.36 × 10−9), a region with previous suggestive evidence in Han Chinese12. We replicated previously reported associations at 9q34.2 (ABO)9, 13q22.1 (KLF5)10, 5p15.33 (TERT and CLPTM1)10,11, 13q12.2 (PDX1)11, 1q32.1 (NR5A2)10, 7q32.3 (LINC-PINT)11, 16q23.1 (BCAR1)11 and 22q12.1 (ZNRF3)11. Our study identifies new loci associated with pancreatic cancer risk.

Research from JAMA Dermatology — Incidence of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer in Relation to Ambient UV Radiation in White Populations, 1978-2012 — Empirical Relationships