Evidence Hub

Low Vitamin D among HIV-Infected Adults: Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Low Vitamin D Levels in a Cohort of HIV-Infected Adults and Comparison to Prevalence among Adults in the US General Population

C. N. Dao, Pragna Patel, Edgar Turner Overton, Frank S. Rhame, Sherri L. Pals, Christopher N. Johnson, Timothy J. Bush, John T. Brooks et al.

Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2011

672 participants · 237 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: we explored serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels and associated factors for insufficiency or deficiency in an adult human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) cohort and compared 25(OH)D levels with those in the general US population. METHODS: using baseline data from the Study to Understand the Natural History of HIV and AIDS in the Era of Effective Therapy (SUN), a prospective, observational cohort study of HIV-infected adults enrolled at 7 HIV specialty clinics in 4 US cities from March 2004 to June 2006, we estimated the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency (defined as 25(OH)D levels <30 ng/mL), standardized by age, race, and sex. Using multiple logistic regression, we examined risk factors for vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency. RESULTS: among 672 SUN participants with baseline serum 25(OH)D determinations who were not receiving vitamin D supplements, 70.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.1%-74.9%) were vitamin D insufficient or deficient, compared with 79.1% (95% CI, 76.7-81.3) of US adults. Factors associated with vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency included black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.51; 95% CI, 2.59-7.85), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.31-5.90), higher body mass index (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.09), hypertension (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.10-3.22), lack of exercise (aOR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.80-5.47), exposure to efavirenz (aOR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.18-3.34), higher exposure to ultraviolet light (aOR, .78; 95% CI, .71-.86),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 672 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free