4.5 Review

Benefit-risk assessment of vitamin D supplementation

Journal

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 21, Issue 7, Pages 1121-1132

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-009-1119-3

Keywords

Falls; Fractures; Hypercalcemia; Recommendations; Risk; Vitamin D

Funding

  1. Swiss National Foundation [PP00B-114864]
  2. DSM

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Current intake recommendations of 200 to 600 IU vitamin D per day may be insufficient for important disease outcomes reduced by vitamin D. This study assessed the benefit of higher-dose and higher achieved 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels [25(OH)D] versus any associated risk. Based on double-blind randomized control trials (RCTs), eight for falls (n = 2426) and 12 for non-vertebral fractures (n = 42,279), there was a significant dose-response relationship between higher-dose and higher achieved 25(OH)D and greater fall and fracture prevention. Optimal benefits were observed at the highest dose tested to date for 700 to 1000 IU vitamin D per day or mean 25(OH)D between 75 and 110 nmol/l (30-44 ng/ml). Prospective cohort data on cardiovascular health and colorectal cancer prevention suggested increased benefits with the highest categories of 25(OH)D evaluated (median between 75 and 110 nmol/l). In 25 RCTs, mean serum calcium levels were not related to oral vitamin D up to 100,000 IU per day or achieved 25(OH)D up to 643 nmol/l. Mean levels of 75 to 110 nmol/l were reached in most RCTs with 1,800 to 4,000 IU vitamin D per day without risk. Our analysis suggests that mean serum 25(OH)D levels of about 75 to 110 nmol/l provide optimal benefits for all investigated endpoints without increasing health risks. These levels can be best obtained with oral doses in the range of 1,800 to 4,000 IU vitamin D per day; further work is needed, including subject and environment factors, to better define the doses that will achieve optimal blood levels in the large majority of the population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available