{"title":"The vitamin D-cardiovascular nexus unraveling mechanistic promise and trial reality.","authors":"Hui Xu","doi":"10.1186/s12986-026-01108-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND: Epidemiological data consistently associate low vitamin D status with elevated cardiovascular risk, yet causal mechanisms remain contested. METHODS: This review synthesized evidence through a protocol-guided approach, with database searches (PubMed/Embase/Web of Science; 2010–2024) focused on RCTs, mechanistic studies of cardiovascular pathways, and high-quality meta-analyses (AMSTAR-2 score ≥ 8). RESULTS: Mechanistic investigations consistently demonstrate vitamin D’s pleiotropic cardiovascular actions, including suppression of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, enhancement of endothelial nitric oxide bioavailability, and attenuation of vascular inflammation and fibrosis—effects validated in human models. In contrast, large-scale randomized trials and their meta-analyses have uniformly failed to demonstrate significant cardiovascular benefit from vitamin D supplementation in the general population. This discordance appears largely attributable to methodological limitations in trial design, particularly the inclusion of predominantly vitamin D-sufficient participants and the absence of stratification for baseline deficiency status or genetic determinants of vitamin D metabolism. Notably, post-hoc analyses suggest potential signal enrichment in cohorts with severe baseline deficiency, though these observations require prospective validation. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support population-wide vitamin D supplementation for cardiovascular risk reduction. The persistent mechanistic-clinical disconnect underscores fundamental gaps in trial methodology rather than invalidating biological plausibility. Future research must prioritize precision nutrition frameworks that integrate baseline vitamin D status, dynamic response biomarkers, and genomic profiling to identify subgroups where supplementation may confer meaningful benefit. Until such evidence emerges from rigorously designed trials, clinical efforts should focus on correcting documented deficiencies in high-risk metabolic phenotypes, with cardiovascular outcomes regarded as potential secondary benefits rather than primary therapeutic targets. </p>","PeriodicalId":19196,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition & Metabolism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13112621/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition & Metabolism","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12986-026-01108-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological data consistently associate low vitamin D status with elevated cardiovascular risk, yet causal mechanisms remain contested. METHODS: This review synthesized evidence through a protocol-guided approach, with database searches (PubMed/Embase/Web of Science; 2010–2024) focused on RCTs, mechanistic studies of cardiovascular pathways, and high-quality meta-analyses (AMSTAR-2 score ≥ 8). RESULTS: Mechanistic investigations consistently demonstrate vitamin D’s pleiotropic cardiovascular actions, including suppression of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, enhancement of endothelial nitric oxide bioavailability, and attenuation of vascular inflammation and fibrosis—effects validated in human models. In contrast, large-scale randomized trials and their meta-analyses have uniformly failed to demonstrate significant cardiovascular benefit from vitamin D supplementation in the general population. This discordance appears largely attributable to methodological limitations in trial design, particularly the inclusion of predominantly vitamin D-sufficient participants and the absence of stratification for baseline deficiency status or genetic determinants of vitamin D metabolism. Notably, post-hoc analyses suggest potential signal enrichment in cohorts with severe baseline deficiency, though these observations require prospective validation. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support population-wide vitamin D supplementation for cardiovascular risk reduction. The persistent mechanistic-clinical disconnect underscores fundamental gaps in trial methodology rather than invalidating biological plausibility. Future research must prioritize precision nutrition frameworks that integrate baseline vitamin D status, dynamic response biomarkers, and genomic profiling to identify subgroups where supplementation may confer meaningful benefit. Until such evidence emerges from rigorously designed trials, clinical efforts should focus on correcting documented deficiencies in high-risk metabolic phenotypes, with cardiovascular outcomes regarded as potential secondary benefits rather than primary therapeutic targets.
背景:流行病学数据一致将低维生素D状态与心血管风险升高联系起来,但因果机制仍有争议。方法:本综述通过协议指导的方法综合证据,数据库检索(PubMed/Embase/Web of Science; 2010-2024)集中于随机对照试验、心血管通路机制研究和高质量的meta分析(AMSTAR-2评分≥8)。结果:机制研究一致证明维生素D具有多效性心血管作用,包括抑制肾素-血管紧张素-醛固酮系统,增强内皮一氧化氮的生物利用度,减弱血管炎症和纤维化效应,这些在人体模型中得到了验证。相比之下,大规模随机试验及其荟萃分析一致未能证明在普通人群中补充维生素D对心血管有显著益处。这种不一致在很大程度上归因于试验设计的方法学局限性,特别是主要纳入维生素D充足的参与者,以及缺乏基线缺乏状态或维生素D代谢的遗传决定因素的分层。值得注意的是,事后分析表明,基线严重不足的队列中潜在的信号富集,尽管这些观察结果需要前瞻性验证。结论:目前的证据并不支持在人群中补充维生素D可以降低心血管风险。持续的机械-临床脱节强调了试验方法的根本差距,而不是使生物学上的合理性无效。未来的研究必须优先考虑精确的营养框架,整合基线维生素D状态、动态反应生物标志物和基因组分析,以确定补充维生素D可能带来有意义益处的亚群。在严格设计的试验中出现这样的证据之前,临床工作应侧重于纠正记录的高风险代谢表型缺陷,将心血管结果视为潜在的次要益处,而不是主要治疗目标。
期刊介绍:
Nutrition & Metabolism publishes studies with a clear focus on nutrition and metabolism with applications ranging from nutrition needs, exercise physiology, clinical and population studies, as well as the underlying mechanisms in these aspects.
The areas of interest for Nutrition & Metabolism encompass studies in molecular nutrition in the context of obesity, diabetes, lipedemias, metabolic syndrome and exercise physiology. Manuscripts related to molecular, cellular and human metabolism, nutrient sensing and nutrient–gene interactions are also in interest, as are submissions that have employed new and innovative strategies like metabolomics/lipidomics or other omic-based biomarkers to predict nutritional status and metabolic diseases.
Key areas we wish to encourage submissions from include:
-how diet and specific nutrients interact with genes, proteins or metabolites to influence metabolic phenotypes and disease outcomes;
-the role of epigenetic factors and the microbiome in the pathogenesis of metabolic diseases and their influence on metabolic responses to diet and food components;
-how diet and other environmental factors affect epigenetics and microbiota; the extent to which genetic and nongenetic factors modify personal metabolic responses to diet and food compositions and the mechanisms involved;
-how specific biologic networks and nutrient sensing mechanisms attribute to metabolic variability.