Kelly M Seamans1, Kevin D Cashman. 1. Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] is the currently accepted vitamin D status marker of choice, use of other biomarkers or functional endpoints have been suggested. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to systematically review the effectiveness of 25(OH)D, parathyroid hormone (PTH), bone turnover markers, bone mineral density (BMD), and calcium absorption as biomarkers of vitamin D status. DESIGN: Methods included a structured search on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE (Ovid), and Cochrane CENTRAL; rigorous inclusion/exclusion criteria; data extraction; quality assessment; meta-analysis; and meta-regression. RESULTS: Thirty-six vitamin D supplementation randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 before-after studies were included. Vitamin D supplementation significantly raised circulating 25(OH)D in all but one RCT, but the response was highly heterogeneous [weighted mean difference (WMD): 34.1 nmol/L; 95% CI: 28.9, 39.2; 32 RCTs; I2 = 97%). Vitamin D supplementation (without calcium) significantly lowered circulating PTH (WMD: -0.29 pmol/L; 95% CI: -0.56, -0.02; 11 RCTs; I2 = 29%), but this was not apparent in the presence of calcium supplementation. There was a suggestion that whole-body or lumbar spine BMD may be a useful biomarker in older people but not in adolescents. Bone turnover markers were not useful biomarkers of vitamin D status, but 4 before-after studies suggested that intestinal calcium absorption may respond to vitamin D status. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review confirmed that circulating 25(OH)D is a robust and reliable marker of vitamin D status. Further research is needed to clarify which population subgroups show responses of PTH, BMD, and/or calcium absorption in response to changes in vitamin D status.
BACKGROUND: Although serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] is the currently accepted vitamin D status marker of choice, use of other biomarkers or functional endpoints have been suggested. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to systematically review the effectiveness of 25(OH)D, parathyroid hormone (PTH), bone turnover markers, bone mineral density (BMD), and calcium absorption as biomarkers of vitamin D status. DESIGN: Methods included a structured search on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE (Ovid), and Cochrane CENTRAL; rigorous inclusion/exclusion criteria; data extraction; quality assessment; meta-analysis; and meta-regression. RESULTS: Thirty-six vitamin D supplementation randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 before-after studies were included. Vitamin D supplementation significantly raised circulating 25(OH)D in all but one RCT, but the response was highly heterogeneous [weighted mean difference (WMD): 34.1 nmol/L; 95% CI: 28.9, 39.2; 32 RCTs; I2 = 97%). Vitamin D supplementation (without calcium) significantly lowered circulating PTH (WMD: -0.29 pmol/L; 95% CI: -0.56, -0.02; 11 RCTs; I2 = 29%), but this was not apparent in the presence of calcium supplementation. There was a suggestion that whole-body or lumbar spine BMD may be a useful biomarker in older people but not in adolescents. Bone turnover markers were not useful biomarkers of vitamin D status, but 4 before-after studies suggested that intestinal calcium absorption may respond to vitamin D status. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review confirmed that circulating 25(OH)D is a robust and reliable marker of vitamin D status. Further research is needed to clarify which population subgroups show responses of PTH, BMD, and/or calcium absorption in response to changes in vitamin D status.
Authors: Kevin D Cashman; Mairead E Kiely; Rikke Andersen; Ida M Grønborg; Katja H Madsen; Janna Nissen; Inge Tetens; Laura Tripkovic; Susan A Lanham-New; Laura Toxqui; M Pilar Vaquero; Ulrike Trautvetter; Gerhard Jahreis; Vikram V Mistry; Bonny L Specker; Jürgen Hower; Anette Knoll; Dennis Wagner; Reinhold Vieth; Inger Öhlund; Pia Karlsland Åkeson; Neil R Brett; Hope A Weiler; Christian Ritz Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: M Chakhtoura; E A Akl; S El Ghandour; K Shawwa; A Arabi; Z Mahfoud; R H Habib; H Hoballah; G El Hajj Fuleihan Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Alison D Gernand; Lisa M Bodnar; Mark A Klebanoff; W Tony Parks; Hyagriv N Simhan Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Kevin D Cashman; Ellen Ghm van den Heuvel; Ruud Jw Schoemaker; Damien P Prévéraud; Helen M Macdonald; Jayashree Arcot Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 8.701
Authors: Stephanie Skender; Jürgen Böhm; Petra Schrotz-King; Jenny Chang-Claude; Erin M Siegel; Karen Steindorf; Robert W Owen; Jennifer Ose; Michael Hoffmeister; Hermann Brenner; Cornelia M Ulrich Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 2.900