News

USPSTF: Not Enough Evidence for Vitamin D Screening

Author and Disclosure Information

View on the News

Focus should be vitamin D repletion

The USPSTF is focused on providing a firm evidential base for early detection and prevention of disease, noted Dr. Robert P. Heaney and Dr. Laura A. G. Armas in an accompanying editorial. But perhaps clinicians should have a different focus: full nutrient repletion in their patients, to optimize their health.

A strict disease-avoidance approach is too simplistic with regard to micronutrients, because they don’t directly cause the effects often attributed to them. Instead, when supplies of micronutrients are inadequate, cellular responses are blunted, Dr. Heaney and Dr. Armas noted. That is dysfunction, but not clinically manifest disease.

Such dysfunction may indeed lead ultimately to various diseases, they added, but disease prevention is a dull tool for discerning the defect. And a disease-prevention approach clearly doesn’t show whether there is enough of the nutrient present to enable appropriate physiological responses.

Dr. Heaney and Dr. Armas are at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb. Their remarks are drawn from an editorial accompanying the USPSTF reports.


 

FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE

References

Symptomatic vitamin D deficiency is known to affect health adversely, as is asymptomatic vitamin D deficiency in certain patient populations. But the evidence that deficiency contributes to adverse health outcomes in asymptomatic adults is inadequate. The evidence that screening for such deficiency and treating “low” vitamin D levels prevents adverse outcomes or simply improves general health also is inadequate, Dr. LeFevre and his associates said.

Similarly, no studies to date have directly examined possible harms of screening for and treating vitamin D deficiency. Although there are concerns that vitamin D supplements may lead to hypercalcemia, kidney stones, or gastrointestinal symptoms, there is no evidence of such effects in the asymptomatic patient population.

The USPSTF concluded that the harms of screening for and treating vitamin D deficiency are likely “small to none,” but it still is not possible to determine whether the benefits outweigh even that small amount of harm.

At present, no national primary care professional organization recommends screening of the general adult population for vitamin D deficiency. The American Academy of Family Physicians, the Endocrine Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Geriatrics Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation all recommend screening for patients at risk for fractures or falls only. The Institute of Medicine has no formal guidelines regarding vitamin D screening, Dr. LeFevre and his associates noted.

The USPSTF summary report and the review of the evidence are available at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Statin Adverse Effects: Sorting out the Evidence
Clinician Reviews
VIDEO: Experts Call for Tighter Regulation of Glucose Monitoring Devices
Clinician Reviews
Purified Pollen Extract for Hot Flashes Did Not Inhibit Tamoxifen’s Efficacy
Clinician Reviews
Obesity, Diabetes Spur on Group A Strep Infections
Clinician Reviews
Home Monitoring of Glucose
Clinician Reviews
Noninsulinoma Pancreatogenous Hypoglycemia Syndrome Following Gastric Bypass Surgery
Clinician Reviews
CT Screening Not Useful in High-risk Diabetes Patients
Clinician Reviews
Functional MRI Shows Diabetes-induced Cognitive Deficits in Elderly
Clinician Reviews
Children With NAFLD and High Blood Pressure More Likely to Develop Cardiovascular Issues
Clinician Reviews
Dyslipidemia: 'The Changing Paradigm'
Clinician Reviews