Vitamin D deficiency can lead to musculoskeletal diseases such as rickets and osteomalacia, but vitamin D supplementation may also prevent extraskeletal diseases such as respiratory tract infections, asthma exacerbations, pregnancy complications and premature deaths. Vitamin D has a unique metabolism as it is mainly obtained through synthesis in the skin under the influence of sunlight (i.e., ultraviolet-B radiation) whereas intake by nutrition traditionally plays a relatively minor role. Dietary guidelines for vitamin D are based on a consensus that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations are used to assess vitamin D status, with the recommended target concentrations ranging from ≥25 to ≥50 nmol/L (≥10–≥20 ng/mL), corresponding to a daily vitamin D intake of 10 to 20 μg (400–800 international units). Most populations fail to meet these recommended dietary vitamin D requirements. In Europe, 25(OH)D concentrations <30 nmol/L (12 ng/mL) and <50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) are present in 13.0 and 40.4% of the general population, respectively. This substantial gap between officially recommended dietary reference intakes for vitamin D and the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in the general population requires action from health authorities. Promotion of a healthier lifestyle with more outdoor activities and optimal nutrition are definitely warranted but will not erase vitamin D deficiency and must, in the case of sunlight exposure, be well balanced with regard to potential adverse effects such as skin cancer. Intake of vitamin D supplements is limited by relatively poor adherence (in particular in individuals with low-socioeconomic status) and potential for overdosing. Systematic vitamin D food fortification is, however, an effective approach to improve vitamin D status in the general population, and this has already been introduced by countries such as the US, Canada, India, and Finland. Recent advances in our knowledge on the safety of vitamin D treatment, the dose-response relationship of vitamin D intake and 25(OH)D levels, as well as data on the effectiveness of vitamin D fortification in countries such as Finland provide a solid basis to introduce and modify vitamin D food fortification in order to improve public health with this likewise cost-effective approach.

Vitamin D testing and treatment is a subject of controversial scientific discussions, and it is challenging to navigate through the expanding vitamin D literature with heterogeneous and partially opposed opinions and recommendations. In this narrative review, we aim to provide an update on vitamin D guidelines and the current evidence on the role of vitamin D for human health with its subsequent implications for patient care and public health issues. Vitamin D is critical for bone and mineral metabolism, and it is established that vitamin D deficiency can cause rickets and osteomalacia. While many guidelines recommend target serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations of ≥50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL), the minimum consensus in the scientific community is that serum 25(OH)D concentrations below 25–30 nmol/L (10–12 ng/mL) must be prevented and treated. Using this latter threshold of serum 25(OH)D concentrations, it has been documented that there is a high worldwide prevalence of vitamin D deficiency that may require public health actions such as vitamin D food fortification. On the other hand, there is also reason for concern that an exploding rate of vitamin D testing and supplementation increases costs and might potentially be harmful. In the scientific debate on vitamin D, we should consider that nutrient trials differ from drug trials and that apart from the opposed positions regarding indications for vitamin D treatment we still have to better characterize the precise role of vitamin D for human health.

Vitamin D has long been established as an elemental factor of bone physiology. Beyond mineral metabolism, the expression of the vitamin D receptor has been identified throughout the cardiovascular (CV) system. Experimental studies showed beneficial effects of vitamin D on heart and vessels, but vitamin D intoxication in animals also led to hypercalcemia and vascular calcification. Our knowledge has been extended by epidemiological studies that showed that 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels are inversely associated with an increased CV risk itself, but also with established CV risk factors, such as arterial hypertension, endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis. Conversely, randomized controlled trials could not document significant and consistent effects of vitamin D supplementation on CV risk or events. Potential explanations may lie in differences in reference ranges or the possibility that low vitamin D in CV disease is only an epiphenomenon. In the latter case, the key question is why low 25(OH)D levels are such a strong predictor of health. While we wait for new data, the current conclusion is that vitamin D is a strong risk marker for CV risk factors and for CV diseases itself.

Bone turnover markers (BTMs) are used to evaluate bone health together with bone mineral density and fracture assessment. Vitamin D supplementation is widely used to prevent and treat musculoskeletal diseases but existing data on vitamin D effects on markers of bone resorption and formation are inconsistent. We therefore examined the effects of vitamin D supplementation on bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (bALP), osteocalcin (OC), C-terminal telopeptide (CTX), and procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP). This is a post-hoc analysis of the Styrian Vitamin D Hypertension Trial, a single-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (RCT) performed at the Medical University of Graz, Austria (2011–2014). Two hundred individuals with arterial hypertension and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels <75 nmol/L were randomized to 2800 IU of vitamin D daily or placebo for eight weeks. One hundred ninety-seven participants (60.2 ± 11.1 years; 47% women) were included in this analysis. Vitamin D had no significant effect on bALP (mean treatment effect (MTE) 0.013, 95% CI −0.029 to 0.056 µg/L; p = 0.533), CTX (MTE 0.024, 95% CI −0.163 to 0.210 ng/mL, p = 0.802), OC (MTE 0.020, 95% CI −0.062 to 0.103 ng/mL, p = 0.626), or P1NP (MTE −0.021, 95% CI −0.099 to 0.057 ng/mL, p = 0.597). Analyzing patients with 25(OH)D levels <50 nmol/L separately (n = 74) left results largely unchanged. In hypertensive patients with low 25(OH)D levels, we observed no significant effect of vitamin D supplementation for eight weeks on BTMs.

No abstract

Patients with previous diabetic foot ulcer are prone to re-ulceration and (re)amputation, to various comorbidities, have significantly impaired quality of life and increased mortality. We aimed to evaluate the risk of foot related complications and mortality in a high-risk population of patients with healed diabetic foot syndrome over a decade. 91 patients with recently healed diabetic foot ulcer were invited for follow-up at 1, 6 and 11 years after inclusion. Patient characteristics at inclusion were: 40 women, 65 ± 11 years, diabetes type 1 (n = 6) or 2 (n = 85), BMI 28.5 ± 4.4 kg/m 2 , and HbA1c 68 ± 17 mmol/mol. Comorbidities included neuropathy (n = 91), peripheral artery disease (PAD), history of minor (n = 25) or major (n = 5, 5.5%) amputation, nephropathy (n = 40) and retinopathy (n = 53). Ulceration recurred in 71 (65%) patients, time to first recurrence was 1.8 ± 2.4 years (mean ± SD). 21 patients had to undergo (re)amputation (minor n = 19, major n = 2), time to amputation was 3.6 ± 1.9 years. Over time, 3 further major amputations were required in patients with an initial minor amputation. Thirty-three (36%) of the initially included patients completed the follow-up period of 11.0 ± 0.6 years. 58 patients (64%) died during the observational period, time to death was 5 ± 3 years in this group. We found overall high mortality of 64% throughout the follow-up period of 11 years in high-risk patients with healed diabetic foot syndrome. Presence of PAD, prior amputation and nephropathy as well as poor glycemic control were significantly predictive for death.

Increasing evidence suggests a possible interaction between vitamin D and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1). We aimed to investigate effects of vitamin D supplementation on IGF-1 (primary outcome) and calcitriol (1,25(OH)2D) concentrations (secondary outcome). This is a post-hoc analysis of the Styrian Vitamin D Hypertension Trial—a single-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (RCT) conducted from 2011 to 2014 at the Medical University of Graz, Austria. Two-hundred subjects with arterial hypertension and 25(OH)D concentrations <30 ng/mL were randomized to either receive 2800 IU of vitamin D daily or placebo for eight weeks. A total of 175 participants (mean ± standard deviation age, 60 ± 11 years; 49% women) with available IGF-1 concentrations were included in the present analysis. At baseline, IGF-1 concentrations were significantly correlated with 1,25(OH)2D (r = 0.21; p = 0.005) but not with 25(OH)D (r = −0.008; p = 0.91). In the RCT, vitamin D had no significant effect on IGF-1 (mean treatment effect 3.1; 95% confidence interval −5.6 to 11.9 ng/mL; p = 0.48), but it increased 1,25(OH)2D concentrations (mean treatment effect 9.2; 95% confidence interval 4.4 to 13.9 pg/mL; p ≤ 0.001). In this RCT, in hypertensive patients with low 25(OH)D concentrations, there was no significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on IGF-1 concentrations. However, we observed a cross-sectional correlation between 1,25(OH)2D and IGF-1 and an increase of 1,25(OH)2D after vitamin D supplementation.

Vitamin D is of public health interest because its deficiency is common and is associated with musculoskeletal diseases, as well as extraskeletal diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and infections. Several health authorities have reviewed the existing literature and published nutritional vitamin D guidelines for the general population. There was a wide consensus that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration should be used to assess vitamin D status and intake, and that musculoskeletal, and not extraskeletal, effects of vitamin D should be the basis for nutritional vitamin D guidelines. Recommended target levels for 25(OH)D range from 25 to 50 nmol/l (10 to 20 ng/ml), corresponding to a vitamin D intake of 400 to 800 International Units (10 to 20 μg) per day. It is of concern that significant sections of the general population do not meet these recommended vitamin D levels. This definitely requires action from a public health perspective.