Still no clear evidence for health benefits of vitamin D

Despite a huge number of studies into the role of vitamin D on health, there is still no clear evidence that it has a beneficial effect on many conditions, conclude researchers.

They argue that "universal conclusions about its benefits cannot be drawn" and say further studies and better designed trials are needed.

A growing body of evidence indicates that vitamin D may reduce risks of a wide range of diseases, including bone mineral disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune disorders, cancer and cardiovascular problems. Yet, despite hundreds of trials, the evidence for vitamin D is still being debated.

Two papers published on in BMJ today attempt to make sense of the existing data.

The first, by researchers based in the UK, Europe and USA, examined data from observational studies and clinical trials (an umbrella review) to summarise health outcomes associated with vitamin D levels, both naturally circulating and as a result of taking supplements.

Of a remarkable 137 different reportedly linked to vitamin D, they found that only 10 had been thoroughly tested in trials, and only one ( – linked to a mother's vitamin D levels in late pregnancy) had apparently concordant evidence of "benefit."

In other words, the researchers failed to find any convincing evidence of a clear role of vitamin D for any of the outcomes.

Based on this review, they suggest a "probable" association between vitamin D levels and birth weight, dental caries in children, maternal vitamin D levels at term and parathyroid hormone levels in chronic kidney disease patients requiring dialysis, but "further studies and better designed trials are needed to draw further conclusions."

In contrast to previous reports, their results also cast doubt on the effectiveness of vitamin D-only supplementation for osteoporosis and / or prevention of falls. This suggests that vitamin D "might not be as essential as previously thought in maintaining density," they write.

Although vitamin D has been extensively studied in relation to a range of outcomes - and there are some indications that low blood vitamin D levels might be linked to several diseases - "firm universal conclusions about its benefits cannot be drawn," say the authors.

In the second paper, an international team led by researchers at the University of Cambridge and the Erasmus Medical Centre, analysed the extent to which vitamin D is associated with death from , cancer, or other conditions, under various circumstances.

They analysed the results of observational cohort studies and randomised controlled trials of both naturally circulating vitamin D and supplements (given singly as either vitamin D2 or D3 supplements).

They found that low circulating vitamin D levels in blood were associated with increased mortality risks from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other causes.

Average follow-up in the ranged from about 3 to almost 7 years. Among the people who received vitamin D supplements in the trials, there were 2,527 deaths in total, compared to 2,587 events in the control groups. Further analysis of subgroups in the trials showed that, when given alone (i.e. not co-administered with other supplements), vitamin D2 supplements did not seem to reduce the risk of death during follow up. However, in the 14 trials that evaluated vitamin D3 alone, among people taking these supplements the risk of death during follow up was cut by 11%.

However, the authors stress that "further clinical investigations will be essential to establish the optimal dose, duration and safety, and whether vitamin D2 or D3 have different effects on mortality risk, since the available are based on elderly populations in general (an age group with high competing risk of death often due to multiple co-existing disease conditions) and they do not typically include cause-specific deaths as the primary outcomes."

In an accompanying editorial, Naveed Sattar and Paul Welsh from the British Heart Foundation Research Centre at Glasgow University, say the apparent degree of benefit from D3 "seems remarkable," but warn that "several limitations must be considered" before these results are taken as a green light for widespread D3 supplementation.

They suggest healthcare professionals treat all observational data cautiously, and call for new trial data "with a focus on potential risks as well as benefits." And they urge clinicians to avoid costly measurement of D in patients without bone disease related conditions.

"Some may argue that supplementing those who are apparently "deficient" is cheap, but patients may gain false reassurance from prescription of a "protective" tablet, they write. "To improve health and prevent chronic disease, we should stick to what is proven: encourage better lifestyles in general and target established risk factors in people at elevated risk," they conclude.

More information:

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Young girl's story may lead Idaho to approve marijuana oil

11 hours ago

(AP)—Ten-year-old Alexis Carey has a rare but intractable form of epilepsy, Dravet Syndrome. The genetic diseases causes severe and multiple seizures, which often leave parents guessing if the terror of watching their child ...

Psychology of food choice: Challenging the status quo

18 hours ago

Researchers are challenging conventional beliefs about the effectiveness of traditional strategies for encouraging healthy eating. The symposium, "Challenging Misconceptions About the Psychology of Food Choice," includes ...

Crohn's disease not exempt from racial disparities

Feb 27, 2015

A study published recently in the IBD Journal found significant differences in hospital readmissions, medication usage, and both medical and surgical complications of children with Crohn's disease related to race. In the ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Apr 02, 2014
What I can definitely agree with in this article is the idea that when it comes to vitamin D, what's really needed is more research involving better-designed trials. I believe in many ways that there have been far too many studies that are merely correlational. While that is acceptable in the early stages of research, it seems to me that it is high time for scientists to really tackle causation when it comes to vitamin D. That is the direction some of the research is clearly beginning to take, we just need a lot more of it! I write about vitamin D research and opinion at a new website devoted to that called Vitamin D Explained. I've found the reporting on this website to be very informative. The site is non-commercial and can be found at

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.