BACKGROUND: Temporal trends in the US population's vitamin D status have been uncertain because of nonstandardized serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] measurements. OBJECTIVE: To accurately assess vitamin D status trends among those aged ≥12 y, we used data from the cross-sectional NHANESs. DESIGN: A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method for measuring 25(OH)D (sum of 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D3), calibrated to standard reference materials, was used to predict LC-MS/MS-equivalent concentrations from radioimmunoassay data (1988-2006 surveys; n = 38,700) and to measure LC-MS/MS concentrations (2007-2010 surveys; n = 12,446). Weighted arithmetic means and the prevalence of 25(OH)D above or below cutoff concentrations were calculated to evaluate long-term trends. RESULTS: Overall, mean predicted 25(OH)D showed no time trend from 1988 to 2006, but during 2007-2010 the mean measured 25(OH)D was 5-6 nmol/L higher. Those groups who showed the largest 25(OH)D increases (7-11 nmol/L) were older, female, non-Hispanic white, and vitamin D supplement users. During 1988-2010, the proportions of persons with 25(OH)D <40 nmol/L were 14-18% (overall), 46-60% (non-Hispanic blacks), 21-28% (Mexican Americans), and 6-10% (non-Hispanic whites). CONCLUSIONS: An accurate method for measuring 25(OH)D showed stable mean concentrations in the US population (1988-2006) and recent modest increases (2007-2010). Although it is unclear to what extent supplement usage compared with different laboratory methods explain the increases in 25(OH)D, the use of higher vitamin D supplement dosages coincided with the increase. Marked race-ethnic differences in 25(OH)D concentrations were apparent. These data provide the first standardized information about temporal trends in the vitamin D status of the US population.
BACKGROUND: Temporal trends in the US population's vitamin D status have been uncertain because of nonstandardized serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] measurements. OBJECTIVE: To accurately assess vitamin D status trends among those aged ≥12 y, we used data from the cross-sectional NHANESs. DESIGN: A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method for measuring 25(OH)D (sum of 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D3), calibrated to standard reference materials, was used to predict LC-MS/MS-equivalent concentrations from radioimmunoassay data (1988-2006 surveys; n = 38,700) and to measure LC-MS/MS concentrations (2007-2010 surveys; n = 12,446). Weighted arithmetic means and the prevalence of 25(OH)D above or below cutoff concentrations were calculated to evaluate long-term trends. RESULTS: Overall, mean predicted 25(OH)D showed no time trend from 1988 to 2006, but during 2007-2010 the mean measured 25(OH)D was 5-6 nmol/L higher. Those groups who showed the largest 25(OH)D increases (7-11 nmol/L) were older, female, non-Hispanic white, and vitamin D supplement users. During 1988-2010, the proportions of persons with 25(OH)D <40 nmol/L were 14-18% (overall), 46-60% (non-Hispanic blacks), 21-28% (Mexican Americans), and 6-10% (non-Hispanic whites). CONCLUSIONS: An accurate method for measuring 25(OH)D showed stable mean concentrations in the US population (1988-2006) and recent modest increases (2007-2010). Although it is unclear to what extent supplement usage compared with different laboratory methods explain the increases in 25(OH)D, the use of higher vitamin D supplement dosages coincided with the increase. Marked race-ethnic differences in 25(OH)D concentrations were apparent. These data provide the first standardized information about temporal trends in the vitamin D status of the US population.
Authors: Anne C Looker; David A Lacher; Christine M Pfeiffer; Rosemary L Schleicher; Mary Frances Picciano; Elizabeth A Yetley Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2009-07-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Rosemary L Schleicher; Maya R Sternberg; David A Lacher; Christoher T Sempos; Anne C Looker; Ramon A Durazo-Arvizu; Elizabeth A Yetley; Madhulika Chaudhary-Webb; Khin L Maw; Christine M Pfeiffer; Clifford Johnson Journal: Natl Health Stat Report Date: 2016-04-25
Authors: Anne C Looker; Christine M Pfeiffer; David A Lacher; Rosemary L Schleicher; Mary Frances Picciano; Elizabeth A Yetley Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Mary R Rooney; Lisa Harnack; Erin D Michos; Rachel P Ogilvie; Christopher T Sempos; Pamela L Lutsey Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christopher T Sempos; Annemieke C Heijboer; Daniel D Bikle; Jens Bollerslev; Roger Bouillon; Patsy M Brannon; Hector F DeLuca; Glenville Jones; Craig F Munns; John P Bilezikian; Andrea Giustina; Neil Binkley Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: May A Beydoun; Sharmin Hossain; Marie T Fanelli-Kuczmarski; Hind A Beydoun; Jose-Atilio Canas; Michele K Evans; Alan B Zonderman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Christine M Pfeiffer; David A Lacher; Rosemary L Schleicher; Clifford L Johnson; Elizabeth A Yetley Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 8.701
Authors: Deborah M Mitchell; Kristin Ruppert; Nisha Udupa; Fatima Bassir; Karin Darakananda; Daniel H Solomon; Yinjuan Lian; Jane A Cauley; Arun S Karlamangla; Gail A Greendale; Joel S Finkelstein; Sherri-Ann M Burnett-Bowie Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: Kathleen Torkko; Cathee Till; Catherine M Tangen; Phyllis J Goodman; Xiaoling Song; Jeannette M Schenk; M Scott Lucia; Ulrike Peters; Adrie van Bokhoven; Ian M Thompson; Marian L Neuhouser Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-02-26
Authors: Jenni Rosendahl; Saara Valkama; Elisa Holmlund-Suila; Maria Enlund-Cerullo; Helena Hauta-Alus; Otto Helve; Timo Hytinantti; Esko Levälahti; Eero Kajantie; Heli Viljakainen; Outi Mäkitie; Sture Andersson Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 16.193