A few snippets. Discussing findings from a recent cross-sectional study involving 340 African Americans with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Buckley said that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were positively associated with increased calcified atherosclerotic plaque in the aorta and carotid arteries (J.Clin.Endo.Metab. Jan. 8, 2010; Epub ahead of print PMID:20061416). Recently, a large prospective randomized trial assessed the effects of using calcium supplements on vascular event rates, but it did not involve African Americans. The trial involved 1,471 healthy postmenopausal New Zealand women who were randomized to receive either supplemental calcium or placebo. By 5 years of follow up, there were a total of 101 myocardial infarctions, strokes, and sudden deaths in 69 women in the supplemental calcium group compared to 54 such events in 42 control subjects (Br. Med. J. 2008;336:262-66). 50,000 IU weekly for 8 weeks – mainly for vitamin D-deficient elderly patients at high risk for fracture or fall. That’s where there is supporting evidence of benefit. Like many others, Dr. Buckley eagerly awaits fresh guidance in the form of updated recommendations on vitamin D from the U.S. Institute of Medicine. Rumor has it that the IOM report, due this spring, will recommend an increase in the currently recommended supplemental 400 IU/day for 50- to 70-year-olds not getting sufficient vitamin D from the sun. Source
Ian Reid who did the second study spoke to us about the CVS signal from calcium supplementation a couple of years ago and so many of my patients are now off calcium.
I remember that article (CVS and Calcium). I've also never been that impressed with Calcium and fracture prevention. I was telling people about the possible heart attack risks and calcium for a few weeks after that study. I found it frustrating as it confused patients ( ... you mean I should stop my Calcium pills ??? .... no one else is telling me this ... ) so I gave up. I still tell a few people here and there.
Vitamin D and Rheumatoid arthritis. [article]. Hydroxychloroquine, or Plaquenil, and corticosteroids, which both can be prescribed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, can interfere with Vitamin D. 15 Minutes of Sun Exposure Gives You 20,000 IU of Vitamin D
Vitamin D3 needed for innate immune system in skin - protects against microbes. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...vitamin-d-is-saving-your-skin/article1929938/
I've seen several articles recently citing new studies correlating levels of 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D3 to elevated CRP if D3 was under 21 ugm, and elevating with each 10 ugm over 21. So the implication is that correcting D3 deficiency lowers CRP, but overcorrecting it (i.e., correction past low normal) elevates CRP. Have any further ideas about that?
1,25 levels are highly variable. When 25OHD3 is low, then 1,25 rises .... so true measures of deficiency require 25OHD3 levels. Do you have your references for us?
Vitamin D 'improves eye sight of elderly' British researchers found that supplements were potentially a "simple and effective" way to combat age-related eye diseases, such as macular degeneration. Effects in mice were seen in as little as six weeks. Scientists believe many people in developed countries lack vitamin D, which they think is essential to keeping a good blood supply flowing to the retinas. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9018354/Vitamin-D-improves-eye-sight-of-elderly.html
Vitamin D is measured by a 25(OH)D test. The results are usually presented in the USA as ng/ml or in the UK and Canada as nmol/l Average UK 40yr old adult 25(OH)D status goes from around 30 nmol/l (12 ng/ml) March to 75nmol/l (30ng/ml) September. So the chance of UK doctors finding patients with levels above 100 ng/dl. or 250nmol/l would be extremely remote. I take 5000iu/daily vitamin D3, and I get as much full body sun exposure as possible and in winter use a uvb rich tanning bed 2/3 times week doing so keeps my levels around 60ng/ml 150nmol/l. In Europe the unit used is nanomoles per litre (nmol/L). The conversion factor from nanograms per 100ml (ng/dl) the US unit to nmol/L is approximately 2.5 so that vitamin D levels above 100 nanograms per 100ml, is equivalent to >250 nmol/L, pretty high and well above the max cited in the article and would require very large doses to achieve. In fact the NHS provides thousands of 300,000 IU doses vitamin D as infusion (intravenous) to patients with chronic low levels of vitamin D every year. They found those with vitamin D levels above 100 nanograms per 100ml, were 2.5 times more likely to have AF as those with normal levels (41-80ng/100ml). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...-D-pills-can-double-heart-condition-risk.html =================== Graham: Is that red likely true ? I do all my vitamin D testing in February / March.
I don't know what UK levels are, but they look high, and likely higher than here. As for the AF risk, I'm guessing it's due to concurrent Ca supplements.
High vitamin D linked to 50% lower Crohn's risk in women http://agajournals.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/does-vitamin-d-prevent-crohns-disease/
http://annals.org/article.aspx?doi=10.7326/0003-4819-157-3-201208070-00462 The USPSTF recommends exercise or physical therapy and vitamin D supplementation to prevent falls in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years or older who are at increased risk for falls. This is a B recommendation. Taking vitamin D supplements daily is one of three major recommendations on fall prevention recently issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. “The exact mechanism is not known, but it seems to help muscle strength and balance,” said Dr. Al Siu, vice chairman of the task force and chairman of the geriatrics and palliative medicine department at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. And the help is significant. In a review of nine trials, the task force found that a daily dose of 800 international units (I.U.) reduced the risk of falling by about 17 percent, compared with those who did not take the vitamin. The task force is the first major medical group to recommend vitamin D supplements for those who live at home (not in assisted living or nursing homes) and are at higher-than-normal risk of falling — that is, those over age 65 who have already fallen or who have had limitations in mobility within the last year. http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/scientists-weigh-in-on-fall-prevention/?ref=health
Vitamin D in pregnancy may prevent multiple sclerosis "Because Vitamin D deficiency is a massive problem at the moment due to living at high latitudes and lifestyle changes (wearing sunscreen etc), mothers may need to take several thousand international units of Vitamin D3 to become Vitamin D replete." "It is thought that maternal Vitamin D levels during pregnancy affect the immune status of the developing foetus, and hence modulates subsequent MS risk," wrote the authors. North of 52 degrees latitude lies the northern parts of England, the Scandinavian countries, and most of Russia and Canada. [source]
Dose response releationship of Vitamin D and IDDM risk. http://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2012-11-15-vitamin-D-and-type-1-diabetes-link.aspx Neat samples ! Date: November 15, 2012 Vitamin D Deficiency Linked to Type 1 Diabetes A study led by researchers from the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine has found a correlation between vitamin D3 serum levels and subsequent incidence of Type 1 diabetes. The six-year study of blood levels of nearly 2,000 individuals suggests a preventive role for vitamin D3 in this disease. The research appears the December issue of Diabetologia, a publication of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). “Previous studies proposed the existence of an association between vitamin D deficiency and risk of and Type 1 diabetes, but this is the first time that the theory has been tested in a way that provides the dose-response relationship,” said Cedric Garland, DrPH, FACE, professor in UCSD’s Department of Family and Preventive Medicine. This study used samples from millions of blood serum specimens frozen by the Department of Defense Serum Registry for disease surveillance. The researchers thawed and analyzed 1000 samples of serum from healthy people who later developed type 1 diabetes and 1000 healthy controls whose blood was drawn on or near the same date but who did not develop type 1 diabetes. By comparing the serum concentrations of the predominant circulating form of vitamin D – 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) – investigators were able to determine the optimal serum level needed to lower an individual’s risk of developing type 1 diabetes. Based mainly on results of this study, Garland estimates that the level of 25(OH)D needed to prevent half the cases of type 1 diabetes is 50 ng/ml. A consensus of all available data indicates no known risk associated with this dosage. “While there are a few conditions that influence vitamin D metabolism, for most people, 4000 IU per day of vitamin D3 will be needed to achieve the effective levels,” Garland suggested. He urges interested patients to ask their health care provider to measure their serum 25(OH)D before increasing vitamin D3 intake. “This beneficial effect is present at these intakes only for vitamin D3,” cautioned Garland. “Reliance should not be placed on different forms of vitamin D and mega doses should be avoided, as most of the benefits for prevention of disease are for doses less than 10,000 IU/day.” Garland’s co-authors from UC San Diego School of Medicine and the Naval Health Research Center include Edward Gorham, PhD; Sharif Mohr, PhD; and Heather Hofflich, DO; Alina Burgi and Kenneth Zeng of the Naval Health Research Center, and Camillo Ricordi MD, of the University of Miami Diabetes Research Institute. The study was supported by a Congressional allocation to the Diabetes Research Institute of the University of Miami through the Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, California.
In January, the latest Statistics Canada Report on vitamin D revealed that the average vitamin D blood levels for Canadians between the ages of six and 79 years of age fell from 67.7 nmol/L in 2009 to just 63.5 nmol/L in 2011. This decrease is disturbing as research studies continue to show that people with lower vitamin D levels are at a much higher risk of developing serious diseases. Only a third of Canadians supplement vitamin D — at what dose we are not sure because that was not stated. But whatever dose, it was not enough, and those aged 12-39 age had the lowest vitamin D levels. There were 68 per cent of Canadians who had vitamin D blood levels sufficient for healthy bones at 50 nmol/L. However, fewer than 10 per cent of Canadians reached natural optimal levels of over 100 nmol/L — the amount associated with an overall decrease in disease incidence including heart disease, MS, Type I diabetes, depression and various cancers. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death. According to the National Cancer Institute, vitamin D levels of 80nmol/L or higher were associated with 72 per cent risk reduction on colorectal cancer mortality, based on the vitamin D levels of 16,818 participants over 12 years. A study published in Molecular Nutrition & Food Research in 2010 reported that if all Canadians reached a vitamin D blood serum level of 105 nmol/L we could expect an annual reduction in health-care costs of $14.4 billion, which more than justifies testing costs. In fact, we would be hard pressed to think of any drug or supplement that has such a low cost benefit ratio. http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Arts/E...-higher-risk-of-developing-serious-diseases/1 Some interesting numbers.
It would be nice if we had some prospective long term trials to see if an intervention makes a difference
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/03/26/calgary-vitamin-d-study.html "Scientists reviewed 30 years of research on the topic" No idea where it was published. It's hard to factor out Exercise and other healthy things from these studies.
