Integrating Endocrine, Genomic, and Extra-Skeletal Benefits of Vitamin D into National and Regional Clinical Guidelines

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Vitamin D is essential for bone health, immune function, and overall well-being. Numerous ecological, observational, and prospective studies, including randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), report an inverse association between higher serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D; calcifediol] levels in various conditions, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders such as diabetes and obesity, susceptibility to infection-related complications, autoimmune diseases, and all-cause mortality. Results: Vitamin D operates through two distinct systems. The endocrine system comprises the renal tubular cell-derived circulatory calcitriol, which primarily regulates calcium homeostasis and muscular functions. In contrast, intracellularly generated calcitriol in peripheral target cells is responsible for intracrine/paracrine system signaling and calcitriol–vitamin D receptor-mediated genomic effects. Government-appointed committees and health organizations have developed various clinical practice guidelines for vitamin D supplementation and management. However, these guidelines heavily relied on the 2011 Institute of Medicine (IoM) report, which focused solely on the skeletal effects of vitamin D, ignoring other body systems. Thus, they do not represent maintaining good overall health and aspects of disease prevention. Additionally, the IoM report was intended as a public health recommendation for the government and is not a clinical guideline. Discussion: New country- and regional-specific guidelines must focus on healthy nations through disease prevention and reducing healthcare costs. They should not be restricted to bone effect and must encompass all extra-skeletal benefits. Nevertheless, due to misunderstandings, medical societies and other governments have used faulty IoM report as a foundation for creating vitamin D guidelines. Consequently, they placed disproportionate emphasis on bone health while largely overlooking its benefits for other bodily systems, making current guidelines, including 2024, the Endocrine Society less applicable to the public. As a result, the utility of published guidelines has been significantly reduced for clinical practice and RCTs that designed on bone-centric are generate misleading information and remain suboptimal for public health and disease prevention. Conclusions: This review and its recommendations address the gaps in current vitamin D clinical practice guidelines and propose a framework for developing more effective, country and region-specific recommendations that capture the extra-skeletal benefits of vitamin D to prevent multiple diseases and enhance public health.