Clinical Practice Guideline provides evidence on vitamin D's role in reducing disease risk in specific populations, suggesting significant implications for supplementation.
Background/Objectives: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on vitamin D was published in 2024. Its main objective was the use of vitamin D to lower the risk of disease in individuals without established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25-hydroxavitamin D (25(OH)D) testing. The methodology followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) and the Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) framework. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved by a systematic review was prioritized to inform this guideline. It was concluded that vitamin D supplementation reduces rickets and respiratory tract infections in children, mortality in individuals aged 75 years or older, pregnancy complications (outcomes), and progression of prediabetes to diabetes mellitus. Consequently, empiric vitamin D supplementation was recommended for individuals aged 1 to 18 years and ≥75 years, pregnant women, and individuals with prediabetes. Empiric vitamin D supplementation is defined as a vitamin D intake that exceeds the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) and is implemented without 25(OH)D testing. Methods: This article provides a comprehensive guideline summary and critical appraisal based on a narrative review on scientific publications regarding that guideline. Results: Several publications discussed the 2024 Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on vitamin D. The main criticisms and discussion relate to unclear vitamin D dosages, guideline applicability to certain populations including controversy with previous vitamin D guidelines, and the implications of 25(OH)D testing. Conclusions: The 2024 Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on vitamin D followed a rigorous methodological approach with high quality standards but it leaves many open questions and uncertainties warranting clarification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pilz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: