Considered as one of the major epidemics of the 21st century, osteoporosis affects approximately 200 million people globally, with significant worldwide impact on rates of morbidity and mortality and massive socioeconomic burdens. Mainly characterized by decreased bone mineral density (BMD) and increased risk of bone fragility/deterioration, this devastating silent epidemic typically has no symptoms until a fracture occurs. The multifactorial disease, osteoporosis is instigated by complex interactions between genetic, metabolic and environmental factors, with severe impact on the biomechanics of the musculoskeletal system. This article provides a review of the epidemiology, genetic and biomechanical aspects of primary osteoporosis. The review begins with a summary of the epidemiology and global prevalence of osteoporosis. Sections 1 and 2 discuss the genetic associations and molecular signaling pathways involved in normal and pathological osteogenesis while Section 3 explores the biomechanics of osteoporosis and its quantitative damaging effects on critical bone mechanical properties, and associated bone remodeling. Overall, this review summarizes the recent findings about osteoporosis and emphasizes the importance of an integrative holistic approach in investigating osteoporosis towards providing better informed, more effective preventive and treatment modalities. Importantly, this work also explores the limited available literature on the various aspects of osteoporosis in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and Middle East despite its alarming prevalence in the region, and highlights the need for further research and studies taking into consideration the importance of the vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene influencing the development of osteoporosis.

This study offers evidence that vitamin D deficiency could be a major public health burden among young Emirati adults, mostly because of sun deprivation in a sun-blessed country. This study include...

Although observational studies of health outcomes generally suggest beneficial effects with, or following, higher serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have generally not supported those findings. Here we review results from observational studies and RCTs regarding how vitamin D status affects several nonskeletal health outcomes, including Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, autoimmune diseases, cancers, cardiovascular disease, COVID-19, major depressive disorder, type 2 diabetes, arterial hypertension, all-cause mortality, respiratory tract infections, and pregnancy outcomes. We also consider relevant findings from ecological, Mendelian randomization, and mechanistic studies. Although clear discrepancies exist between findings of observational studies and RCTs on vitamin D and human health benefits these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Bias and confounding are seen in observational studies and vitamin D RCTs have several limitations, largely due to being designed like RCTs of therapeutic drugs, thereby neglecting vitamin D’s being a nutrient with a unique metabolism that requires specific consideration in trial design. Thus, RCTs of vitamin D can fail for several reasons: few participants’ having low baseline 25(OH)D concentrations, relatively small vitamin D doses, participants’ having other sources of vitamin D, and results being analyzed without consideration of achieved 25(OH)D concentrations. Vitamin D status and its relevance for health outcomes can usefully be examined using Hill’s criteria for causality in a biological system from results of observational and other types of studies before further RCTs are considered and those findings would be useful in developing medical and public health policy, as they were for nonsmoking policies. A promising approach for future RCT design is adjustable vitamin D supplementation based on interval serum 25(OH)D concentrations to achieve target 25(OH)D levels suggested by findings from observational studies.

Insufficient blood levels of the neurohormone vitamin D are associated with increased risk of COVID-19 severity and mortality. Despite the global rollout of vaccinations and promising preliminary results, the focus remains on additional preventive measures to manage COVID-19. Results conflict on vitamin D’s plausible role in preventing and treating COVID-19. We examined the relation between vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity and mortality among the multiethnic population of the United Arab Emirates. Our observational study used data for 522 participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at one of the main hospitals in Abu Dhabi and Dubai. Only 464 of those patients were included for data analysis. Demographic and clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. Serum samples immediately drawn at the first hospital visit were used to measure serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations through automated electrochemiluminescence. Levels < 12 ng/mL were significantly associated with higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection and of death. Age was the only other independent risk factor, whereas comorbidities and smoking did not contribute to the outcomes upon adjustment. Sex of patients was not an important predictor for severity or death. Our study is the first conducted in the UAE to measure 25(OH)D levels in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and confirm the association of levels < 12 ng/mL with COVID-19 severity and mortality.

Vitamin D₃ has many important health benefits. Unfortunately, these benefits are not widely known among health care personnel and the general public. As a result, most of the world’s population has serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations far below optimal values. This narrative review examines the evidence for the major causes of death including cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and COVID-19 with regard to sub-optimal 25(OH)D concentrations. Evidence for the beneficial effects comes from a variety of approaches including ecological and observational studies, studies of mechanisms, and Mendelian randomization studies. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are generally considered the strongest form of evidence for pharmaceutical drugs, the study designs and the conduct of RCTs performed for vitamin D have mostly been flawed for the following reasons: they have been based on vitamin D dose rather than on baseline and achieved 25(OH)D concentrations; they have involved participants with 25(OH)D concentrations above the population mean; they have given low vitamin D doses; and they have permitted other sources of vitamin D. Thus, the strongest evidence generally comes from the other types of studies. The general finding is that optimal 25(OH)D concentrations to support health and wellbeing are above 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L) for cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality rate, whereas the thresholds for several other outcomes appear to range up to 40 or 50 ng/mL. The most efficient way to achieve these concentrations is through vitamin D supplementation. Although additional studies are warranted, raising serum 25(OH)D concentrations to optimal concentrations will result in a significant reduction in preventable illness and death.