Given its rare side effects and its relatively wide safety margin, it may be an important, inexpensive, and safe adjuvant therapy for many diseases, but future large and well-designed studies should evaluate this further. Vitamin D is clearly not a panacea, and is most likely efficient only in deficiency. The data on a benefit for mortality and prevention of infections, at least in severely deficient individuals, appear convincing. Severe vitamin D deficiency with a 25(OH)D concentration below <30 nmol/L (or 12 ng/ml) dramatically increases the risk of excess mortality, infections, and many other diseases, and should be avoided whenever possible. Vitamin D deficiency (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D 50 nmol/L or 20 ng/ml is, therefore, the primary treatment goal, although some data suggest a benefit for a higher threshold. This may be attributed to limitations in trial design, as most studies did not meet the basic requirements of a nutrient intervention study, including vitamin D-replete populations, too small sample sizes, and inconsistent intervention methods regarding dose and metabolites.
Currently, the role of vitamin D supplementation, and the optimal vitamin D dose and status, is a subject of debate, because large interventional studies have been unable to show a clear benefit (in mostly vitamin D replete populations). Vitamin D testing and the use of vitamin D supplements have increased substantially in recent years.
0 kommentar(er)
