Vitamin D is the first item of drug expenditure for the treatment of osteoporosis. Its deficiency is a condition that affects not only older individuals but also young people. Recently, the scientific community has focused its attention on the possible role of vitamin D in the development of several chronic diseases such as cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. This review aims to highlight the possible role of vitamin D in cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. In particular, here we examine (1) the role of vitamin D in diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, and obesity, and its influence on insulin secretion; (2) its role in atherosclerosis, in which chronic vitamin D deficiency, lower than 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L), has emerged among the new risk factors; (3) the role of vitamin D in essential hypertension, in which low plasma levels of vitamin D have been associated with both an increase in the prevalence of hypertension and diastolic hypertension; (4) the role of vitamin D in peripheral arteriopathies and aneurysmal pathology, reporting that patients with peripheral artery diseases had lower vitamin D values than non-suffering PAD controls; (5) the genetic and epigenetic role of vitamin D, highlighting its transcriptional regulation capacity; and (6) the role of vitamin D in cardiac remodeling and disease. Despite the many observational studies and meta-analyses supporting the critical role of vitamin D in cardiovascular physiopathology, clinical trials designed to evaluate the specific role of vitamin D in cardiovascular disease are scarce. The characterization of the importance of vitamin D as a marker of pathology should represent a future research challenge.

Background/Objectives: Chronic venous disease is a very common disease. Recent studies suggest a potential link between this condition and cardiovascular disease or mortality. Common pathophysiological features include endothelial injury, hypercoagulability, and systemic inflammation. Conservative management of chronic venous disease includes compression therapy and pharmacological treatment. However, there is some controversy regarding the exact place of pharmacological treatment in the management of this condition. We conducted the VeinHeart Survey to gather information on the management of patients with chronic venous disease referred to vascular specialists in Italy. Methods: The present survey involved 78 Italian phlebologists, angiologists, and vascular surgeons, with data from a total of 1,621 patients. Results: Drug therapies prescribed by vascular specialists participating in this survey included: glycosaminoglycans, topical phlebotonics, systemic phlebotonics, and supplements. The most commonly prescribed medications were glycosaminoglycans, both at the first visit and at follow-up. The meantime since the first visit was 56.4 days. Both symptoms and signs improved at follow-up. The most improved signs at follow-up were edema and venous ulcer healing. The prevalence of CEAP classes C3 and C4 also showed a decrease at the follow-up visit. Conclusions: The findings of this survey provide a picture of the state of the art of current pharmacological treatments prescribed by expert clinicians in the management of patients with chronic venous disease in Italy. This may offer some useful insights for the optimization of current therapeutic options, in order to improve the clinical management of this disease.

Background/Objectives: Chronic venous disease is a very common disease. Recent studies suggest a potential link between this condition and cardiovascular disease or mortality. Common pathophysiological features include endothelial injury, hypercoagulability, and systemic inflammation. Conservative management of chronic venous disease includes compression therapy and pharmacological treatment. However, there is some controversy regarding the exact place of pharmacological treatment in the management of this condition. We conducted the VeinHeart Survey to gather information on the management of patients with chronic venous disease referred to vascular specialists in Italy. Methods: The present survey involved 78 Italian phlebologists, angiologists, and vascular surgeons, with data from a total of 1621 patients. Results: Drug therapies prescribed by vascular specialists participating in this survey included: glycosaminoglycans, topical phlebotonics, systemic phlebotonics, and supplements. The most commonly prescribed medications were glycosaminoglycans, both at the first visit and at follow-up. The meantime since the first visit was 56.4 days. Both symptoms and signs improved at follow-up. The most improved signs at follow-up were edema and venous ulcer healing. The prevalence of CEAP classes C3 and C4 also showed a decrease at the follow-up visit. Conclusions: The findings of this survey provide a picture of the state of the art of current pharmacological treatments prescribed by expert clinicians in the management of patients with chronic venous disease in Italy. This may offer some useful insights for the optimization of current therapeutic options, in order to improve the clinical management of this disease.