A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines on Vitamin D

Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

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.

Vitamin D Insufficiency and Epistemic Humility: An Endocrine Society Guideline Communication

A long-held precept is that vitamin D supplementation primarily, if not exclusively, benefits individuals with low circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations at baseline. However, the most appropriate 25(OH)D threshold to distinguish unacceptably low vs reliably adequate concentrations remains controversial. Such threshold proposals have largely been based on observational studies, which provide less robust evidence compared to randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Since the Endocrine Society's first vitamin D-related guideline was published in 2011, several large vitamin D-related RCTs have been published, and a newly commissioned guideline development panel (GDP) prioritized 4 clinical questions related to the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation in generally healthy individuals with 25(OH)D levels below a threshold. The GDP determined that available clinical trial evidence does not permit the establishment of 25(OH)D thresholds that specifically predict meaningful benefit with vitamin D supplementation. The panel noted important limitations in the available evidence, and the panel's overall certainty in the available evidence was very low. Nonetheless, based on the GDP's analyses and judgments, the Endocrine Society no longer endorses its previously proposed definition of vitamin D "sufficiency" (ie, at least 30 ng/mL [75 nmol/L]) or its previously proposed definition of vitamin D "insufficiency" (ie, greater than 20 ng/mL [50 nmol/L] but lower than 30 ng/mL [75 nmol/L]). The Endocrine Society's rationale for such is the subject of this Guideline Communication.