Explore the vast range of titles available.

Little is known about how genetic and nongenetic factors modify responses of vitamin D supplementation in nonwhite populations. To investigate factors modifying 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and bioavailable 25(OH)D [25(OH)DBio] responses after vitamin D3 supplementation. In this 20-week, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, 448 Chinese with vitamin D deficiency received 2000 IU/d vitamin D3 or placebo. Serum 25(OH)D, vitamin D-binding protein (VDBP), parathyroid hormone (PTH) and calcium were measured, and 25(OH)DBio was calculated based on VDBP levels. Six common polymorphisms in vitamin D metabolism genes were genotyped. Between-arm net changes were +30.6 ± 1.7 nmol/L for 25(OH)D, +2.7 ± 0.2 nmol/L for 25(OH)DBio, and -5.2 ± 1.2 pg/mL for PTH, corresponding to 70% [95% confidence interval (CI), 62.8% to 77.2%] net reversion rate for vitamin D deficiency at week 20 (P < 0.001). Only 25(OH)DBio change was positively associated with calcium change (P < 0.001). Genetic factors (GC-rs4588/GC-rs7041, VDR-rs2228570, and CYP2R1-rs10741657; P ≤ 0.04) showed stronger influences on 25(OH)D or 25(OH)DBio responses than nongenetic factors, including baseline value, body mass index, and sex. An inverse association of PTH-25(OH)D was demonstrated only at 25(OH)D of <50.8 (95% CI, 43.6 to 59.0) nmol/L. Supplemented 2000 IU/d vitamin D3 raised 25(OH)D and 25(OH)DBio but was unable to correct deficiency in 25% of Chinese participants, which might be partially attributed to the effect of genetic modification. More studies are needed to elucidate appropriate vitamin D recommendations for Asians and the potential clinical implications of 25(OH)DBio.

It is unclear whether maternal vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy and lactation improves fetal and infant growth in regions where vitamin D deficiency is common. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Bangladesh to assess the effects of weekly prenatal vitamin D supplementation (from 17 to 24 weeks of gestation until birth) and postpartum vitamin D supplementation on the primary outcome of infants' length-for-age z scores at 1 year according to World Health Organization (WHO) child growth standards. One group received neither prenatal nor postpartum vitamin D (placebo group). Three groups received prenatal supplementation only, in doses of 4200 IU (prenatal 4200 group), 16,800 IU (prenatal 16,800 group), and 28,000 IU (prenatal 28,000 group). The fifth group received prenatal supplementation as well as 26 weeks of postpartum supplementation in the amount of 28,000 IU (prenatal and postpartum 28,000 group). Among 1164 infants assessed at 1 year of age (89.5% of 1300 pregnancies), there were no significant differences across groups in the mean (±SD) length-for-age z scores. Scores were as follows: placebo, -0.93±1.05; prenatal 4200, -1.11±1.12; prenatal 16,800, -0.97±0.97; prenatal 28,000, -1.06±1.07; and prenatal and postpartum 28,000, -0.94±1.00 (P=0.23 for a global test of differences across groups). Other anthropometric measures, birth outcomes, and morbidity did not differ significantly across groups. Vitamin D supplementation had expected effects on maternal and infant serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and calcium concentrations, maternal urinary calcium excretion, and maternal parathyroid hormone concentrations. There were no significant differences in the frequencies of adverse events across groups, with the exception of a higher rate of possible hypercalciuria among the women receiving the highest dose. In a population with widespread prenatal vitamin D deficiency and fetal and infant growth restriction, maternal vitamin D supplementation from midpregnancy until birth or until 6 months post partum did not improve fetal or infant growth. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01924013 .).

Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency is a global health issue that afflicts more than one billion children and adults worldwide. The consequences of vitamin D deficiency cannot be under estimated. There has been an association of vitamin D deficiency with a myriad of acute and chronic illnesses including preeclampsia, childhood dental caries, periodontitis, autoimmune disorders, infectious diseases, cardiovascular disease, deadly cancers, type 2 diabetes and neurological disorders. This review is to put into perspective the controversy surrounding the definition for vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency as well as providing guidance for how to treat and prevent vitamin D deficiency.

Summary Vitamin D status has long been related to falls risk. In this planned secondary analysis of a vitamin supplementation trial in postmenopausal women, standardized 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration up to 60 ng/mL was not associated with increased falls. Women with 25(OH)D ≥ 60 ng/mL had higher odds of ≥ 2 falls. Purpose Falls are common and cause fractures. High circulating 25(OH)D may increase falls risk; thus, recent guidance recommends 25(OH)D not exceed 50 ng/mL. Prior falls studies have not reported standardized 25(OH)D (s25D) data. The purpose of this planned secondary analysis of a 4-year calcium/vitamin D supplementation trial was to evaluate the association of s25D with falls. Methods This study recruited 2,303 postmenopausal women. The analytic dataset consisted of pooled concatenated data from years 2–4 (N Total  = 5,732). Serum 25(OH)D was measured annually and subsequently retrospectively standardized using Vitamin D Standardization Program methods. Falls were recorded by diary. Incidence for ≥ 1 fall and ≥ 2 falls was assessed by s25D group (≤ 20, 20- < 30, 30- < 40, 40- < 50, 50- < 60 and ≥ 60 ng/mL) using multivariable logistic regression. Results Mean (SD) baseline s25D was 32.6 ng/mL (8.3) with no difference between supplement and placebo groups. s25D increased to 41.3 ng/mL at year 2 in the supplement group then remained stable. By s25D group, incidence for ≥ 1 fall varied from 22–32% (p = 0.19). For ≥ 2 falls incidence varied (p = 0.03) from 6% (< 20 ng/mL) to 17% (≥ 60 ng/mL.) There was no significant association between s25D and ≥ 1 fall. Those with s25D ≥ 60 ng/mL had a higher adjusted odds of ≥ 2 falls (OR = 1.99 ± 1.2–3.3) compared to women with s25D of 30- < 40 ng/mL. Conclusion s25D up to 60 ng/mL was not associated with greater risk for ≥ 1 or ≥ 2 falls. Women with a s25D ≥ 60 ng/mL were at higher odds for ≥ 2 falls, however this group included only ~ 2% of study observations; therefore, confirmation in other cohorts is necessary.

Abstract Background Numerous studies demonstrate associations between serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and a variety of common disorders, including musculoskeletal, metabolic, cardiovascular, malignant, autoimmune, and infectious diseases. Although a causal link between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and many disorders has not been clearly established, these associations have led to widespread supplementation with vitamin D and increased laboratory testing for 25(OH)D in the general population. The benefit-risk ratio of this increase in vitamin D use is not clear, and the optimal vitamin D intake and the role of testing for 25(OH)D for disease prevention remain uncertain. Objective To develop clinical guidelines for the use of vitamin D (cholecalciferol [vitamin D3] or ergocalciferol [vitamin D2]) to lower the risk of disease in individuals without established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25(OH)D testing. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, along with experts in guideline methodology and systematic literature review, identified and prioritized 14 clinically relevant questions related to the use of vitamin D and 25(OH)D testing to lower the risk of disease. The panel prioritized randomized placebo-controlled trials in general populations (without an established indication for vitamin D treatment or 25[OH]D testing), evaluating the effects of empiric vitamin D administration throughout the lifespan, as well as in select conditions (pregnancy and prediabetes). The panel defined “empiric supplementation” as vitamin D intake that (a) exceeds the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) and (b) is implemented without testing for 25(OH)D. Systematic reviews queried electronic databases for publications related to these 14 clinical questions. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and guide recommendations. The approach incorporated perspectives from a patient representative and considered patient values, costs and resources required, acceptability and feasibility, and impact on health equity of the proposed recommendations. The process to develop this clinical guideline did not use a risk assessment framework and was not designed to replace current DRI for vitamin D. Results The panel suggests empiric vitamin D supplementation for children and adolescents aged 1 to 18 years to prevent nutritional rickets and because of its potential to lower the risk of respiratory tract infections; for those aged 75 years and older because of its potential to lower the risk of mortality; for those who are pregnant because of its potential to lower the risk of preeclampsia, intra-uterine mortality, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and neonatal mortality; and for those with high-risk prediabetes because of its potential to reduce progression to diabetes. Because the vitamin D doses in the included clinical trials varied considerably and many trial participants were allowed to continue their own vitamin D–containing supplements, the optimal doses for empiric vitamin D supplementation remain unclear for the populations considered. For nonpregnant people older than 50 years for whom vitamin D is indicated, the panel suggests supplementation via daily administration of vitamin D, rather than intermittent use of high doses. The panel suggests against empiric vitamin D supplementation above the current DRI to lower the risk of disease in healthy adults younger than 75 years. No clinical trial evidence was found to support routine screening for 25(OH)D in the general population, nor in those with obesity or dark complexion, and there was no clear evidence defining the optimal target level of 25(OH)D required for disease prevention in the populations considered; thus, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in all populations considered. The panel judged that, in most situations, empiric vitamin D supplementation is inexpensive, feasible, acceptable to both healthy individuals and health care professionals, and has no negative effect on health equity. Conclusion The panel suggests empiric vitamin D for those aged 1 to 18 years and adults over 75 years of age, those who are pregnant, and those with high-risk prediabetes. Due to the scarcity of natural food sources rich in vitamin D, empiric supplementation can be achieved through a combination of fortified foods and supplements that contain vitamin D. Based on the absence of supportive clinical trial evidence, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in the absence of established indications. These recommendations are not meant to replace the current DRIs for vitamin D, nor do they apply to people with established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25(OH)D testing. Further research is needed to determine optimal 25(OH)D levels for specific health benefits.