If you talk to postmenopausal women, you learn that a large proportion of women are told to take vitamin D to bolster bone health, prevent osteoporosis, and fractures. This was used so widely in New York City that a doctor said to me two years ago with a straight face: “There’s something about postmenopausal women in Manhattan that the vast majority of women have low vitamin D.”
In today’s JAMA Internal Medicine, University of Wisconsin researchers report results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, refuting the target of 30 ng/mL and questioning the benefit of both low-dose and high-dose vitamin D therapy on enhancing bone mineral density, muscle function, muscle mass, and falls – finding that it was no better than placebo. The study tested outcomes at one year with high-dose, low-dose, and placebo.
Adequate vitamin D levels are controversial, but this study rejected a target of 30 ng/mL.
It may be a hard pill to swallow for women, who have long feared potentially disabling hip fractures. Many think with aging, more medications are needed. I spoke with a few friends diagnosed with low vitamin D about the research. They told me that they would rather be safe than sorry and would consult with their doctors.
Documenting no added benefit to a widely used drug is an important first step in changing practice. However, I wonder if more research needs to be conducted on patient perceptions of aging, hazards on the horizon, and imperatives for prevention. Simply documenting inappropriate use or overuse without attention to widely held beliefs may not be sufficient to guide change.