Towards prevention of vitamin D deficiency and beyond: knowledge gaps and research needs in vitamin D nutrition and public health

Vitamin D Research Group, School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University College Cork, Republic of Ireland.
The British journal of nutrition (Impact Factor: 3.34). 12/2011; 106(11):1617-27. DOI: 10.1017/S0007114511004995
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The North American Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently published their report on dietary reference intakes (DRI) for Ca and vitamin D. The DRI committee's deliberations underpinning this most comprehensive report on vitamin D nutrition to date benefited hugely from a much expanded knowledge base in vitamin D over the last decade or more. However, since their release, the vitamin D DRI have been the subject of intense controversy, which is largely due to the persistence of fundamental knowledge gaps in vitamin D. These can be identified at the levels of exposure, metabolism, storage, status, dose-response, function and beneficial or adverse health effects, as well as safe and effective application of intake recommendations at the population level through sustainable food-based approaches. The present review provides a brief overview of the approach used by the IOM committee to revise the DRI for vitamin D and to collate from a number of authoritative sources key knowledge gaps in vitamin D nutrition from the public health perspective. A number of research topics are outlined and data requirements within these are identified and mapped to the risk assessment framework used by the DRI committee. While not intended as an exhaustive list, it provides a basis for organising and prioritising research efforts in the area of vitamin D, which may offer a perspective on the major areas in need of attention. It is intended to be of use to researchers, national policy makers, the public health community, industry groups and other relevant stakeholders including funding institutions.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dietary reference intervals relate to the distribution of dietary requirement for a particular nutrient as defined by the distribution of physiological requirement for that nutrient. These have more commonly been called Dietary Reference Values (DRV) or Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI), amongst other names. The North American DRI for vitamin D are the most current dietary reference intervals and arguably arising from the most comprehensive evaluation and report on vitamin D nutrition to date. These are a family of nutrient reference values, including the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR), the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), the Adequate Intake, and Tolerable Upper Intake Level. In particular, the EAR is used for planning and assessing diets of populations; it also serves as the basis for calculating the RDA, a value intended to meet the needs of nearly all people. The DRVs for vitamin D in the UK and the European Community have been in existence for almost two decades, and both are currently under review. The present paper briefly overviews these three sets of dietary reference intervals as case studies to highlight both the similarities as well as possible differences that may exist between reference intervals for vitamin D in different countries/regions. In addition, it highlights the scientific basis upon which these are based, which may explain some of the differences. Finally, it also overviews how the dietary reference intervals for vitamin D may be applied, and especially in terms of assessing the adequacy of vitamin D intake in populations.
    Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation. Supplementum 01/2012; 243:136-43. DOI:10.3109/00365513.2012.682891
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite interest and expanding research on non-bone health outcomes, the evidence remains inconclusive concerning the causal role of vitamin D in the non-bone health outcomes. To improve our understanding of its role, research needs to address five key areas related to vitamin D: 1) its physiology and molecular pathways. 2) its relationship to health outcomes. 3) its exposure-response relationships, 4) its interactions with genotype and other nutrients and 5) its adverse effects. Its metabolism needs to be elucidated including extra-renal activation and catabolism, distribution and mobilization from body pools, kinetics of this distribution, and their regulation during pregnancy and lactation. Rigorous, well-designed randomized clinical trials need to evaluate the causal role of vitamin D in a diverse array of non-bone health and chronic disease outcomes across the life cycle and reproductive states. Critically needed is the determination of the exposure-response, inflection and threshold of serum 25(OH)D concentrations relative to functional and health outcomes. The dose-response relationships of standardized measures of serum 25(OH)D need to be understood in response to low and high doses of total vitamin D with careful consideration of confounding factors including catabolic rates. How do relevant genetic polymorphisms, dietary calcium and phosphate and potentially dietary cholesterol interact with vitamin D exposure on its bioavailability, transport, distribution in body pools, metabolism and action as well as on bone and non-bone health outcomes? The nature and mechanisms of U-shaped risk relationships with adverse health outcomes at higher exposure to vitamin D needs elucidated across the life cycle and reproductive stages.
    Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation. Supplementum 01/2012; 243:154-62. DOI:10.3109/00365513.2012.682895
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The many recently published data on vitamin D have raised much interest in the medical community. One of the consequences has been a great increase in the prescription of vitamin D concentration measurements in clinical practice. It must be reminded that only the measurement of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration is indicated to evaluate vitamin D status. Furthermore, since vitamin D insufficiency is so common, since treatment is inexpensive and has a large safety margin, and since we already have much data suggesting that besides its classic effects on bone and mineral metabolism, vitamin D may potentially be helpful for the prevention/management of several diseases, perhaps should it be prescribed to everyone without prior testing? In our opinion, there are however groups of patients in whom estimation of vitamin D status is legitimate and may be recommended. This includes patients in whom a "reasonably" evidence-based target concentration (i.e., based on randomized clinical trials when possible) should be achieved and/or maintained such as patients with rickets/osteomalacia, osteoporosis, chronic kidney disease and kidney transplant recipients, malabsorption, primary hyperparathyroidism, granulomatous disease, and those receiving treatments potentially inducing bone loss. Other patients in whom vitamin D concentration may be measured are those with symptoms compatible with a severe vitamin D deficiency or excess persisting without explanation such as those with diffuse pain, or elderly individuals who fall, or those receiving treatments which modify vitamin D metabolism such as some anti-convulsants. Measurement of Vitamin D concentrations should also be part of any exploration of calcium/phosphorus metabolism which includes measurement of serum calcium, phosphate and PTH.
    Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation. Supplementum 01/2012; 243:129-35. DOI:10.3109/00365513.2012.682888