New guidelines also advise people to limit their vitamin D supplementation to recommended daily doses
Clinical laboratories may eventually receive fewer doctors’ orders for vitamin D testing thanks to new guidelines released by the Endocrine Society. The new Clinical Practice Guideline advises against “unnecessary testing for vitamin D levels.” It also urges healthy people, and those 75-years of age or younger, to avoid taking the vitamin at levels above the daily recommended amounts, according to a news release.
Even though the Endocrine Society does recommend vitamin D supplements for certain groups, it advises individuals to hold off on routine testing. That’s because there appears to be uncertainty among ordering clinicians about what to do for patients based on their vitamin D test results.
“When clinicians measure vitamin D, they’re forced to decide what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So, what this panel is saying is ‘Don’t screen,’” Clifford Rosen, MD, Director of Clinical and Translational Research and Senior Scientist, Maine Medical Center Research Institute at the University of Maine, told Medscape Medical News.
“We have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group,” he added.
“This guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them,” the author of the Endocrine Society guideline, Anastassios G. Pittas, MD (above), Professor of Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, told Medscape Medical News. This new guideline could result in doctors ordering fewer vitamin D tests from clinical laboratories. (Photo copyright: Tufts University.)
Vitamin D Screening Not Recommended for Certain Groups
The Endocrine Society’s new clinical guidelines advise healthy adults under 75 years of age to refrain from taking vitamin D supplements that exceed US Institute of Medicine—now the National Academy of Medicine (NAM)—recommendations.
Additionally, these updated guidelines:
Recommend vitamin D supplements at levels above NAM recommendations to help lower risks faced by children 18 years and younger, adults 75 and older, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes.
Suggest daily, lower-dose vitamin D (instead of non-daily, higher-dose of the vitamin) for people 50 years and older who have “indications for vitamin D supplementation or treatment.”
Advise “against routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D [aka, calcifediol] levels” in all the above groups “since outcome-specific benefits based on these levels have not been identified. This includes 25-hyrdoxyvitamin D screening in people with dark complexion or obesity.”
One exception to the guideline applies to people with already established osteoporosis, according to the guideline’s author endocrinologist Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, Chief of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism; Co-Director, Tuft’s Diabetes and Lipid Center; and Professor of Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.
Vitamin D’s Link to Disease Studied
During a panel discussion at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting, members acknowledged that many studies have shown relationships between serum concentrations of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) and physical disorders including those of musculoskeletal, metabolic, and cardiovascular systems. Still, they questioned the link of vitamin D supplementation and testing with disease prevention.
“There is paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases. … What we really need are large-scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens,” said Panel Chair Marie Demay, MD, Endocrinologist, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Medscape Medical News reported.
Meanwhile, in their Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism paper, the researchers note that use of supplements (1,000 IU or more per day) increased from 0.3% to 18.2%, according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), CDC, for the years 1999-2000 and 2013-2014.
“The use of 25(OH)D testing in clinical practice has also been increasing; however, the cost effectiveness of widespread testing has been questioned, especially given the uncertainty surrounding the optimal level of 25(OH)D required to prevent disease,” the authors wrote.
“Thus, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in all populations considered,” the researchers stated at the Endocrine Society annual meeting.
Other Groups Weigh-in on Vitamin D Testing
Pathologists and medical laboratory leaders may recall the explosion in vitamin D testing starting about 20 years ago. Vitamin D testing reimbursed by Medicare Part B “increased 83-fold” during the years 2000 to 2010, according to data cited in an analysis by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).
Also, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a statement that there is not enough information to “recommend for or against” testing for vitamin D deficiency.
“No organization recommends population-based screening for vitamin D deficiency, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology recommends against it,” the USPSTF noted.
Clinical Laboratories Can Get the Word Out
The vitamin D debate has been going on for a while. And the latest guidance from the Endocrine Society may cause physicians and patients to stop ordering vitamin D tests as part of annual physicals or in routine screenings.
Medical laboratories can provide value by ensuring physicians and patients have the latest information about vitamin D test orders, reports, and interpretation.
New USPSTF guidelines suggest reducing the volume of Vitamin D deficiency testing in the general population, which could reduce revenue for clinical laboratories
From 2005 to 2011, the volume of clinical laboratory tests for Vitamin D soared nationally as more doctors tested more patients for Vitamin D deficiency. This became a major source of revenue growth for many clinical laboratories performing those tests. But at least a portion of lab revenue associated with Vitamin D testing may be in jeopardy.
In a recommendation statement published in JAMA Network, titled, “Screening for Vitamin D Deficiency in Adults,” the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—following up on its 2014 recommendations—stated “that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for Vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults.”
The USPSTF’s new recommendations concerning Vitamin D testing came after the federal task force performed an extensive review of the benefits and potential harm of screening for Vitamin D deficiencies in non-pregnant adults who displayed no symptoms of a deficiency. Symptoms of a Vitamin D deficiency include fatigue and tiredness, bone and back pain, depression, impaired would healing, bone loss, hair loss, and muscle pain.
After completing its research, the USPSTF concluded “the overall evidence on the benefits of screening for Vitamin D deficiency is lacking. Therefore, the balance of benefits and harms of screening for Vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults cannot be determined.”
Are USPSTF Conclusions Contrary to Current Deficiency Testing Practices?
“Among asymptomatic, community-dwelling populations with low Vitamin D levels, the evidence suggests that treatment with Vitamin D has no effect on mortality or the incidence of fractures, falls, depression, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, or adverse events,” the JAMA Network article states.
Other studies have linked low Vitamin D levels with some health conditions and risks, however, the USPSTF review found no studies that directly evaluated any perks associated with Vitamin D screening in otherwise healthy individuals.
Everyday Health listed 10 illnesses linked to low Vitamin D deficiency. They include:
“We see a lot of associations between Vitamin D deficiency and poor health outcomes,” Mary Byrn, PhD, RN, an associate professor at Loyola University in Chicago who studies Vitamin D, told Everyday Health. “Although these are relationships and we are unable to conclude cause and effect, taking Vitamin D supplements or exposing yourself to the sun in a safe manner to increase Vitamin D naturally are easy ways to improve your health and try to reduce your risk of multiple diseases,” she said. (Photo copyright: Midwest Nursing Research Society.)
Can Vitamin D Supplementation Be Harmful?
The USPSTF study also stated that Vitamin D supplementation appears to be safe and that toxicity from too much Vitamin D would be rare. One of the USPSTF’s key concerns of screening for Vitamin D in asymptomatic individuals was the potential for misclassification and inaccurate diagnoses.
The study also revealed that more research is needed to determine what serum levels are optimal when diagnosing a Vitamin D deficiency, and whether those levels vary by subgroups, such as race, ethnicity, or gender.
The JAMA Network article states that “the evidence is inconclusive about the effect of treatment on physical functioning and infection.”
The amount of Vitamin D individuals need each day depends upon their age. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends that adults between the ages of 19 and 70 get 15 micrograms or 600 International Units (IU) of Vitamin D daily.
According to an NIH fact sheet, people can receive Vitamin D through sun exposure, supplements, and some food, such as fatty fish, mushrooms, beef liver, cheese, and egg yolks, plus foods that are fortified with Vitamin D, such as some milk products and breakfast cereals.
Vitamin D and COVID-19
It has been widely reported that approximately 42% of Americans are Vitamin D deficient. And Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to an increased risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and how well patients recover after COVID-19 treatment.
A study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism that examined 216 COVID-19 hospitalized patients in Spain found that over 80% of those individuals were deficient in Vitamin D. The study also found that COVID-19 patients who had lower Vitamin D levels also had a higher number of inflammatory markers that have been associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. The results of this study were in March.
For several decades, experts have recommended avoiding sun exposure and using sunscreen to avoid skin cancers. This may have caused people to get less Vitamin D from sun exposure. It may also have contributed to an increase in the number of Vitamin D deficiencies and increased COVID-19 infections.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers should keep in mind that the USPSTF recommended less testing for Vitamin D deficiencies in asymptomatic individuals. This proposal may affect test volume in clinical laboratories, as Vitamin D testing has been a common and lucrative assay for many years.
Clinical laboratory managers may want to follow the debate that surfaced shortly after publication of the study in a peer-reviewed journal, when editors of the journal issued concerns over the researchers’ claims
Virologists and medical laboratory scientists continue to investigate ways the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus can be defeated using the body’s own defenses in conjunction with medical treatments and a possible vaccine. Now, researchers at the Boston University School of Medicine have discovered that higher levels of vitamin D in the blood may improve chances of recovering from a COVID-19 infection.
“This study provides direct evidence that Vitamin D sufficiency can reduce the complications, including the cytokine storm (release of too many proteins into the blood too quickly) and ultimately death from COVID-19,” Michael F. Holick, PhD, MD, Professor of Medicine, Physiology and Biophysics at Boston University School of Medicine and one of the authors of the study, told SciTechDaily.
Holick is well-known in the scientific community for his many published studies on Vitamin D. In 2018, Kaiser Health News and The New York Times published a retrospective on Holick and his advocacy on behalf of Vitamin D, titled, “The Man Who Sold America On Vitamin D—and Profited in the Process.” In that story, Holick acknowledged working as a consultant for several organizations, including Quest Diagnostics in a relationship that dates back to 1979. KHN and NYT noted that Quest Diagnostics performs Vitamin D tests.
The Boston University researchers published their study in PLOS ONE, a peer-reviewed open-access scientific journal published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS). The paper’s apparent conclusions, however, invoked an “expression of concern” from the journal’s editors, which, along with direct responses from the Boston University researchers, can be read on PLOS ONE.
Can Vitamin D Save Lives?
To perform their research, the Boston University researchers examined the Vitamin D levels of 235 patients who had been admitted to a hospital with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patients were then tracked for clinical outcomes, including:
Blood samples were also analyzed for the number of lymphocytes and inflammatory markers. The researchers compared the collected data between patients who were sufficient to those who were deficient in Vitamin D levels.
They determined that patients over the age of 40 who were Vitamin D sufficient were 51.5% less likely to die from a COVID-19 infection than those who were deficient in the vitamin.
“Because Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency is so widespread in children and adults in the United States and worldwide, especially in the winter months, it is prudent for everyone to take a vitamin D supplement to reduce risk of being infected and having complications from COVID-19,” Michael F. Holick, PhD, MD (above), told SciTechDaily. The Boston University School of Medicine professor and study author has been praising the health benefits of Vitamin D for years. He played a role in drafting national guidelines for the vitamin and also authored books that tout the advantages of Vitamin D, the importance of UV rays, and the biologic effects of light. (Photo copyright: Boston Herald.)
How Vitamin D Works and Why It’s So Important
In a fact sheet, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommend that adults between the ages of 19 and 70 take 15 micrograms (mcg) or 600 International Units (IU) of Vitamin D per day. Adults over the age of 70 should increase that amount to 20 mcg or 800 IUs per day.
According NBC News, Americans spent $936 million on supplements in 2017, which was nine times more than the previous decade. That article also stated that medical laboratory testing for Vitamin D levels have exponentially increased over the years. More than 10 million tests for Vitamin D levels were ordered for Medicare patients in 2016 at a cost of $365 million, which represents an increase of 547% since 2007. Currently, approximately one in four adults over the age of 60 in the US take Vitamin D supplements.
The NIH fact sheet notes that Vitamin D is a nutrient found in cells throughout the body and is needed for good health and to maintain strong bones. Individuals who are deficient in Vitamin D may develop soft, thin, brittle bones, as well as rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults. Vitamin D also helps the immune system fight off invading bacteria and viruses, helps nerves carry messages between the brain and other body parts, and helps muscles move. It can also play a role in warding off osteoporosis in older adults.
Very few foods naturally contain Vitamin D. The best dietary sources for the vitamin are fatty fish such as salmon, tuna, and mackerel, and foods fortified with Vitamin D, such as milks, some breakfast cereals, and yogurt. Being outside on sunny days is another way to obtain Vitamin D, as the body makes the vitamin when skin is directly exposed to the sun.
The Boston University study outlines the advantages of having sufficient Vitamin D levels, as well as how the vitamin may help ward off and possibly lessen the effects of infections like COVID-19, though those conclusions have been called into question.
Nevertheless, individuals who are deficient in the vitamin may want to take a supplement or get plenty of sunshine, just to be on the safe side. And clinical laboratory managers will want to keep in mind that over the years “the steady increase in physician and patient demand for Vitamin D tests has kept most clinical and pathology laboratories scrambling to maintain turnaround times and quality,” which Dark Daily reported in “Why Vitamin D Continues to Be the World’s Fastest-Growing Clinical Laboratory Test.”
CEO Summary:Editor-In-Chief Robert L. Michel gave blood for the cause and it’s another laboratory industry first! To understand what doctors and patients see as national labs use different methodologies and reference ranges to report Vitamin 25(OH) D results, his blood was tested 24 times by nine laboratories. The results were unveiled at the Executive War College last May in New Orleans. These results are published here, along with comments from the All-Star Vitamin D Panel experts who discussed reasons why doctors might be confused and might misinterpret Vitamin D lab test results.
UNTIL RECENT YEARS, THE VITAMIN D TESTING MARKET was a rather quiet, uncontroversial corner of the lab testing marketplace. This was true because of the widespread acceptance and use of a long-established, FDA-cleared immunoassay test for Vitamin 25(OH) D.
However, this status quo in Vitamin D was disrupted when some national laboratories began performing Vitamin 25(OH) D testing using tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS). For a variety of reasons, this different methodology introduced a new element of complexity for physicians and their patients.
In recent years, laboratory scientists and pathologists have begun to publicly discuss and debate the pros and cons of testing for Vitamin 25(OH) D by each of the available methodologies.Much of this discussion centers on analytical precision.
However, this scientific debate about analytical precision of different methodologies among laboratory testing professionals often fails to recognize the needs of physicians and their patients. Clinical laboratory testing is done at the specific request of a physician who is evaluating and treating a patient. These physicians and patients are the true customers of the clinical laboratory, Thus, their needs and expectations for Vitamin 25(OH) D testing should be addressed in the public discussions of laboratory scientists.
During the All-Star Vitamin D Panel at the Executive War College in New Orleans last May, the perspective of the patient was introduced in a novel and unique way. Robert L. Michel, moderator of the panel and Editor-In-Chief of THE DARK REPORT, shared the results of 24 Vitamin D tests performed on his blood by nine different laboratories in the United States.
February 24 Audio Conference will cover the A-to-Z of Vitamin 25(OH) D Testing
Clinical laboratory testing for Vitamin 25(OH) D continues to the fastest-growing test on the medical laboratory menu, in the United States and other developed nations around the globe. Over the past four years, the steady increase in physician and patient demand for Vitamin D tests has kept most pathology laboratories scrambling to maintain turnaround times and quality.
To help laboratories understand and respond to this unprecedented demand for a simple laboratory test, national Vitamin D expert Bruce Hollis, Ph.D., Director of Pediatric Nutritional Sciences at the Medical University of South Carolina will conduct a special audio conference on February 24 at 1:00 P.M. EST. Pathologists and laboratory professionals will find Dr. Hollis’ session to be an essential and comprehensive explanation of why Vitamin D has become a high profile subject in medicine and how they should position their clinical laboratories to best serve the demand for Vitamin D knowledge and testing.
