Can Supplements Actually Boost Your Immune System?
While perusing the supplement aisle, you'll likely pass bottles of pills and gummies claiming to boost your immune system.
And if you've ever felt tempted to try them, you're far from alone: Recent research suggests that millions of Americans have used dietary supplements for those supposed benefits.
The new study was published last week in JAMA Network Open and included more than 15,000 participants. It found that about one in nine U.S. residents used supplements to enhance their immune systems between January 2017 and March 2020.
'It comes up all the time,' said Dr. Michael Ben-Aderet, the associate medical director of hospital epidemiology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles who wasn't involved with the study. 'There's really this sense of people trying to optimize their health.'
Many people also used the supplements without a doctor's recommendation, the researchers found. But infectious disease doctors, researchers, and supplement experts say there isn't much evidence that these products actually help.
What does the science say?
Supplements claiming to support immunity often contain vitamins and minerals necessary for the immune system. So it isn't unreasonable to believe that these products could help you sidestep common viral infections or lessen symptoms once you've become sick.
In fact, some nutrients such as vitamins A, C, D and zinc are needed to protect against germs, and deficiencies in them raise your risk of becoming sick, said Dr. Mahtab Jafari, a professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of California, Irvine.
However, most people in the United States get the vitamins and minerals they need through a balanced diet, said Dr. Ben-Aderet. For those people, there isn't compelling evidence that supplements are useful, he added.
There are thousands of supplements claiming to help the immune system. Some contain just one vitamin or mineral, and others are packed with a hodgepodge of ingredients. Vitamin D, vitamin C and zinc are among the most studied and prevalent ingredients, experts said, and the benefits still aren't conclusive.
Research suggesting that vitamin D supplements treat viral infections like the common cold or reduce the risk of them is inconsistent. A 2020 review found that the supplements didn't protect against viruses in people with normal or high levels of vitamin D. A 2021 review involving nearly 50,000 participants, however, found that vitamin D supplements slightly reduced the risk of acute respiratory infections. (But the review involved authors who have received funding from supplement companies.)
The evidence is similarly unconvincing for vitamin C and zinc. A 2013 review from the Cochrane Library involving more than 11,000 participants found that vitamin C supplements failed to reduce the risk of catching a cold in the general population, though it sometimes shortened how long the illness lasted. And a 2024 Cochrane review involving more than 8,000 participants found that zinc supplements did next to nothing to prevent the common cold, though it may have reduced duration.
Plants like elderberry and echinacea are also used in immune system supplements. But unlike vitamins and minerals, botanicals aren't essential for immune health, and there's even less reliable research on whether they help prevent or treat common viruses, said Dr. Jen Wall Forrester, senior medical director of infection prevention at UC Health in Cincinnati.
'I wish there was a magic bullet,' she said, but immunity is complex, and supplements are unlikely to single-handedly change how it works.
Why don't we know if they help?
It's hard to firmly state the benefits of immune system supplements because there are few high-quality randomized clinical trials, the gold standard of medical research, assessing their effectiveness, said Dr. Pieter Cohen, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School who studies dietary supplement safety.
And dietary supplements aren't approved by the Food and Drug Administration before hitting the market. This means companies can sell products containing ingredients that haven't been rigorously tested to offer benefits, Dr. Cohen said, and they generally don't have to prove to the F.D.A. that their products contain what they claim.
A 2022 study analyzing 30 supplements marketed to support the immune system found that more than half had inaccurate labels, 13 were misbranded and nine contained ingredients not listed on the label.
What's the bottom line?
'You need to have a really healthy dose of skepticism when you're pulling something off the shelf,' Dr. Ben-Aderet said.
But if you want to give supplements a try, check for high-quality third-party seals of approval from organizations such as U.S. Pharmacopeia or NSF, which test the quality of dietary supplements, Dr. Jafari said. Also scan the F.D.A.'s website to see if the agency has ever issued a warning letter to the supplement company for misleading claims or poor manufacturing, she added.
And talk to a health care provider before taking supplements. They can test your blood for deficiencies, inform you of side effects and unsafe dosages, and let you know whether some supplements could dangerously interact with medications you take, Dr. Wall Forrester said.
If your doctor says the supplement you want to try is generally safe, you 'could just try it out,' Dr. Wall Forrester said, 'but you might be wasting your money.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Can Tackling Addictions Reduce Medicaid Costs?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Discussions around Medicaid costs have become more heated than ever in recent months as President Donald Trump's administration tries to push its budget bill through the legislative ranks. House Republicans have instructed the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to slash $880 billion in spending over the next decade, with Medicaid making up 93 percent of the committee's budget. As a result, the amount of money the federal Medicaid program needs to provide health care services for more than 70 million Americans has been under dispute, with some arguing there is significant waste and misuse of money in the system, while others have warned cuts would leave millions of vulnerable people without access to health care. While lawmakers continue debating the divisive legislation, experts have discussed with Newsweek whether there could be another way of reducing Medicaid costs—tackling substance use disorders. Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders require significantly higher health costs than those without—around $1,200 per month on average compared to $550, according to KFF. Around 7.2 percent of Medicaid recipients age 12 to 64 have a diagnosed substance use disorder, and treatment is key to addressing overdoses, deaths and other health or social complications, KFF reported. So could tackling substance use disorders in turn reduce costs for the Medicaid program? Here's what experts told Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Why Are Medicaid Costs Higher for Those With Substance Use Disorders? The reason Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders have higher health costs is because they often also have additional health complications, Dr. Joshua Lynch, professor of emergency and addiction medicine at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, New York, told Newsweek. This could be physical health conditions, such as hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes, or mental health disorders, "which can lead to more complex health care needs," he added. Those with substance use disorders also may "experience more fragmented care and more challenging access to high quality, lower cost care and preventative services," Lynch said. They may also struggle to work, or stay in work, and this may "contribute to increased reliance on higher-cost healthcare services," he added. Many Americans with substance use disorders also go undiagnosed, Brendan Saloner, professor of health policy and management at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. He added that those with substance addiction can have a lot of problems, such as the risk of overdose, or contracting blood-borne diseases like HIV or hepatitis C, as well as other issues, so "it's much better to get people into care proactively then to wait for their problems to become a crisis." The higher costs for those with substance use disorders, therefore, could "reflect the devastating physical consequences of substance use itself," Heidi Allen, professor of social work at the Columbia University School of Social Work, New York, told Newsweek, pointing to overdoses, increased vulnerability for chronic illness and exposure to infectious diseases. It's also not just about health complications, John Kelly, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and director of the Recovery Research Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, told Newsweek. "The nature of these disorders means also that, on average, in the Medicaid population, individuals suffering from substance use disorder tend to have more social instability in terms of secure housing, employment, and criminal justice complications. These all contribute to increased costs," he said. Could Tackling Substance Use Disorders Reduce Medicaid Costs? While tackling substance use disorders may not slash Medicaid costs in the short term, as it would require investment in prevention and treatment, it could have positive economic impacts in the long run. "Prioritizing substance use treatment for enrollees might not reduce Medicaid costs in the short term, since we would expect more Medicaid enrollees to engage with treatment, which itself costs money," Allen said. However, she added that "it could certainly improve the health of enrollees, which might result in Medicaid savings down the road." If patients also have access to high-quality treatment and are able to manage their condition, "they have a lower reliance on high-cost health care such as emergency visits and inpatient hospitalizations," Lynch said. He added that other comorbidities also become more manageable, while housing stability and employment turn more achievable. "All of these will lead to a decrease in overall Medicaid spending," he said. Kelly also said he thought that tackling substance use disorders could reduce costs for Medicaid, adding that "focus on earlier intervention, and better implementation of care coordination will result in reduced use of more expensive acute medical care services, as well as prevention of the contraction of more chronic disease such as alcohol-associated liver diseases, HIV and hepatitis infections." "I am very confident that it would help to prevent some long-term costs to the program and would have a huge impact on other non-health needs like employment and reduced incarceration," Saloner said. But he added that whether it fully pays for itself, or saves money, is a more difficult question to answer. "We have some older studies showing that substance use care can offset lots of costs to society, but purely from the perspective of the Medicaid budget it's hard to say. The quality of life gains make it very cost-effective, whether or not it's cost saving," he said. Carrie Fry, professor in the department of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Tennessee, told Newsweek: "Research shows that addressing substance use disorder with effective, evidence-based treatments reduces Medicaid costs." In order to cut Medicaid costs, Fry said, making it easier for people with substance use disorders "to start and remain on effective treatment" would be an important step in the process. "For opioid use disorder, this means expanding availability of medications for opioid use disorder including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone," she said. She added that only about half of Medicaid enrollees with an opioid use disorder receive evidence-based treatment in a given year. "So, treatment is an important first step to addressing the burden of substance use disorders in Medicaid and can reduce or prevent additional downstream costs," Fry said. She added that reducing the prevalence of substance use disorder via prevention will "require a more comprehensive approach to addressing broader social conditions that lead to increased risk of developing a substance use disorder."
Epoch Times
12 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Why Drug Price Reform Alone Won't Heal America
President Donald Trump's revived effort to reduce prescription drug prices is a long-overdue step toward affordability. For millions of Americans, the cost of staying alive has become burdensome, and any policy that eases the burden is worth celebrating. However, as a physician, I've seen what happens when medications become too cheap, plentiful, and automatic. If we don't reform how drugs are used, we risk trading financial hardship for clinical harm. Vagaries of Lower Drug Costs In today's health care system, medication is the first answer—and often the last, especially for older adults. More than 40
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Medical professionals say schools have gotten too political, citing ‘unscientific modes of thinking'
Two medical professionals argued in a new report that "medical school has gotten too political," citing "unscientific modes of thinking." "Medical students are now immersed in the notion that undertaking political advocacy is as important as learning gross anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology," the authors wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Sally Satel, a lecturer in psychiatry at Yale University School of Medicine, and Thomas S. Huddle, a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham's Heersink School of Medicine, cited several instances of political sentiments affecting the medical school industry. They noted that researchers are "promoting unscientific modes of thinking about group-based disparities in health access and status." Ucla Medical School Hit With Class-action Lawsuit For Allegedly Still Using Race-based Admissions Process "The University of Minnesota's Center for Antiracism Research for Health Equity decrees 'structural racism as a fundamental cause of health inequities,' despite the fact that this is at best an arguable thesis, not a fact. (The center was shut down last month.) The Kaiser Family Foundation states that health differentials 'stem from broader social and economic inequities,'" the authors write. Read On The Fox News App Satel and Huddle pushed further by detailing an incident that occurred at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center. The institution not only called for a ceasefire in the Gaza war between Israel and Hamas, the authors wrote that staff chanted "intifada, intifada, long live intifada!" which "echoed into patients' rooms." The New York Times reported last summer that the protesters at the University of California, San Francisco, chanting "intifada" consisted of medical students and doctors. Such an incident lays out more deeply the consequences of medical schools prioritizing politics over instruction on professional imperatives, according to the authors. "These doctors were not putting patients first — if anything, they were offending and intimidating patients. They were putting their notion of social justice first," they wrote. The two medical professionals cite other instances where medical schools are steeped in politics, such as endorsing "racial reparations" and instituting "antiracism" training in order to qualify for a medical license in the wake of George Floyd's death. Satel and Huddle offer medical professionals "guidelines" for how to "responsibly" meet patients' needs while leveraging their "professional standing to effect change", including advocating for policies that "directly help patients and are rooted in professional expertise while ensuring that their advocacy does not interfere with their relationships with their colleagues, students, and patients." Medical Schools 'Skirting' Scotus Ruling Rejecting Race In Admissions: Report Satel, a practicing psychiatrist, told Fox News Digital that she is the medical director of a methadone clinic that represents a clinical setting. In response to Fox News Digital's request for comment, Huddle said that his "academic career has been as a clinician teaching how to care for patients while caring for them."Original article source: Medical professionals say schools have gotten too political, citing 'unscientific modes of thinking'
