Short-term and long-term consequences and concerns regarding valid assessment of vitamin D deficiency: comparison of recent food supplementation and clinical guidance reports.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The function and use of vitamin D supplementation has become very controversial. This review attempts to provide a balanced perspective with respect to the experimental findings published in the past 18 months.

RECENT FINDINGS

The recent contrasts between the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report and the Endocrine Societies report have caused great confusion with respect to the dietary requirement for vitamin D as well as the amount of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D that is desirable. Much recent data contradict the suggestions of the IOM report with respect to vitamin D's role in chronic disease such as cancer, cardiovascular function, immune function and autoimmune ailments such as multiple sclerosis.

SUMMARY

Controversy regarding supplementation with vitamin D is fueled by the different purposes of the IOM (guidance for food fortification and not to individualized patient care) and the Endocrine Societies (patient care) reports. Healthcare providers should formulate their own opinions with respect to vitamin D as it pertains to the care of their patient.