The efficacy of vitamin D supplementation for irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review with meta-analysis

• Published in: Nutrition journal Vol. 21; no. 1; pp. 24 - 11
• Main Authors: Huang, Hangkai, Lu, Linjie, Chen, Yishu, Zeng, Yan, Xu, Chengfu
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 05.05.2022; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Alfacalcidol; Bias; Calcifediol; Clinical trials; Dietary Supplements; Dosage and administration; Drug therapy; Humans; Intervention; Intestine; Irritable bowel syndrome; Irritable Bowel Syndrome - drug therapy; Meta-analysis; Pathophysiology; Patient outcomes; Patients; Placebos; Quality of Life; Review; Risk factors; Sensitivity analysis; Supplements; Systematic review; Vitamin D; Vitamin D - therapeutic use; Vitamin D Deficiency - complications; Vitamin D Deficiency - drug therapy; Vitamin deficiency; Vitamins; China; Vitamin D; meta-analysis; Irritable bowel syndrome
• ISSN: 1475-2891; 1475-2891
• DOI: 10.1186/s12937-022-00777-x

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic gastrointestinal disorder involving gut-brain interactions with limited effective treatment options. Vitamin D deficiency is commonly observed in patients with IBS, but whether vitamin D supplementation ameliorates IBS is controversial in randomized controlled trials. The present systematic review and meta-analysis explored the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in patients with IBS. We performed a systematic search of potentially relevant publications from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies and the Web of Science up until January 2022. We assessed the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the IBS severity scoring system (IBS-SSS), IBS quality of life (IBS-QoL) and IBS total score (IBS-TS) before and after vitamin D supplementation intervention. We included four randomized, placebo-controlled trials involving 335 participants. The differences in IBS-SSS score between participants in the intervention group and the placebo group increased after intervention (WMD: -55.55, 95% CI: -70.22 to -40.87, I  = 53.7%, after intervention; WMD: -3.17, 95% CI: -18.15 to 11.81, I  = 0.0%, before intervention). Participants receiving vitamin D supplementation showed greater improvement in IBS-SSS after intervention than participants receiving placebo treatment (WMD: -84.21, 95% CI: -111.38 to -57.05, I  = 73.2%; WMD: -28.29, 95% CI: -49.95 to -6.62, I  = 46.6%, respectively). Vitamin D supplementation was also superior to placebo in IBS-QoL improvement (WMD: 14.98, 95% CI: 12.06 to 17.90, I  = 0.0%; WMD: 6.55, 95% CI: -2.23 to 15.33, I  = 82.7%, respectively). Sensitivity analyses revealed an unstable pooled effect on IBS-TS in participants receiving vitamin D supplementation. Therefore, we did not evaluate the efficacy of vitamin D intervention in IBS-TS. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that vitamin D supplementation was superior to placebo for IBS treatment.