Skip to main content

Primary Research · 2022

The D-Health Trial: a randomised controlled trial of the effect of vitamin D on mortality

Neale et al. · The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 2022

Key finding

D-HEALTH trial (n=21,315). Monthly 60,000 IU vitamin D did not reduce all-cause mortality over 5 years.

BACKGROUND: Venetoclax combined with intensive chemotherapy has been shown to be safe with promising activity in fit patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia. The aim of this study was to compare the activity of venetoclax plus intensive chemotherapy with intensive chemotherapy alone. METHODS: This was a post-hoc propensity score matched analysis of prospective clinical trials (NCT03214562, NCT02115295, and NCT01289457) in patients at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, USA between March 29, 2010, and June 15, 2021. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, and had newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, and were treated within trials incorporating purine analogues with an anthracycline and cytarabine either with venetoclax plus intensive chemotherapy or with intensive chemotherapy alone. Patients in the venetoclax plus intensive chemotherapy cohort were matched with patients in the intensive chemotherapy cohort. Morphological response and measurable residual disease (MRD) was assessed using bone marrow aspiration and biopsy and eight-colour multiparameter flow cytometry. The primary objectives were rate of MRD negative composite complete response and cumulative incidence of transition to allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). All patients who had response within two treatment cycles (induction and re-induction) were included in the analyses. Secondary objectives included assessment of event-free and overall survival. FINDINGS: The propensity matched cohort included 279 patients (median age 49 years [IQR 39-57]; 131 [47%] were men and 148 [53%] were women); 85 in the venetoclax plus intensive chemotherapy cohort and 194 in the intensive chemotherapy cohort. After a median follow up of 30 months (95% CI 26-36), 64 (86%) of 74 patients in the venetoclax plus intensive chemotherapy cohort had an MRD-negative composite complete response rate compared with 86 [61%] of 140 patients in the intensive chemotherapy cohort (odd ratio 3·2 [95% CI 1·5-6·7]; p=0·0028). The overall cumulative incidence of allogeneic HSCT in responding patients was higher with venetoclax plus intensive chemotherapy than intensive chemotherapy (79% [95% CI 67-88] vs 57% [49-65]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·52 [95% CI 1·11-2·08]; p=0·012). Venetoclax plus intensive chemotherapy improved event-free survival (median not reached [NR; 95% CI NR-NR] vs 14·3 months [10·7-33·5]; HR 0·57 [95% CI 0·34-0·95]; p=0·030), but overall survival did not significantly differ between the two cohorts (median NR [95% CI 24-NR] vs 32 months [19-NR]; HR 0·63 [95% CI 0·35-1·1], p=0·13). INTERPRETATIONS: Venetoclax combined with intensive induction chemotherapy induced deep MRD-negative remissions, allowing transition to allogeneic HSCT in first remission, and improvement in event-free survival. These results highlight the incremental benefit of venetoclax added to intensive induction chemotherapy across European LeukemiaNet risk groups, and serve as a benchmark to inform enrolment on future confirmatory prospective clinical trials. FUNDING: None.

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Abstract sourced from PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Displayed in the authors’ own words for context; our critique is in the sections below.

Read the full paper

Cited in 1 guide

How to read a study like this

The same questions worth asking about any research paper, not just this one. Worth a minute even if you trust the grade.

Who was studied, and do you resemble them?

Supplement effects often depend on baseline status. Vitamin D helps people who are deficient; iron helps people who are anemic. A result in people unlike you may not apply to you.

What was measured, and does it matter in daily life?

A study that shows a blood marker moved isn't the same as a study that shows people felt or functioned better. Ask what the outcome means in practice.

How large was the effect — not just whether it was significant.

'Statistically significant' only means the effect is unlikely to be zero. It doesn't tell you the effect is large enough to notice. Look for effect sizes, not just p-values.

Who paid for the trial, and what did they stand to gain?

Industry-funded trials are several times more likely to report positive results than independent ones. It's not usually fraud — it's subtle design and reporting choices. Weight accordingly.

Has anyone else replicated this?

Single positive trials are hypotheses. Replication by independent groups is what turns a hypothesis into reliable evidence. If the only positive trial is the one you're reading, wait.

Does the dose in the trial match what's being sold?

Supplement marketing routinely cites trials that used 5–10× the dose in the product. If the effective dose was 2 g/day and the capsule has 200 mg, expect roughly no effect.

About this page

Formulate maintains a registry of clinical studies cited across its guides and evidence grades. This page links the study metadata to the content that cites it — one canonical entry per landmark study.

The full citation chain is public so readers can verify claims without hunting through individual guide pages. Browse all cited studies →

Note: Study summaries on this page are editorial interpretations of the research. Always consult the primary source before drawing clinical conclusions.