Vitamin D is important for bone health; in 2014 it was the fifth most commonly ordered laboratory test among Medicare Part B payments. The aim of this study was to describe vitamin D status in the US population in 2011-2014 and trends from 2003 to 2014. We used serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D data from NHANES 2011-2014 (n = 16,180), and estimated the prevalence at risk of deficiency (<30 nmol/L) or prevalence at risk of inadequacy (30-49 nmol/L) by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, and dietary intake of vitamin D. We also present trends between 2003 and 2014. In 2011-2014, the percentage aged ≥1 y at risk of vitamin D deficiency or inadequacy was 5.0% (95% CI: 4.1%, 6.2%) and 18.3% (95% CI: 16.2%, 20.6%). The prevalence of at risk of deficiency was lowest among children aged 1-5 y (0.5%; 95% CI: 0.3%, 1.1%), peaked among adults aged 20-39 y (7.6%; 95% CI: 6.0%, 9.6%), and fell to 2.9% (95% CI: 2.0%, 4.0%) among adults aged ≥60 y; the prevalence of at risk of inadequacy was similar. The prevalence of at risk of deficiency was higher among non-Hispanic black (17.5%; 95% CI: 15.2%, 20.0%) than among non-Hispanic Asian (7.6%; 95% CI: 5.9%, 9.9%), non-Hispanic white (2.1%; 95% CI: 1.5%, 2.7%), and Hispanic (5.9%; 95% CI: 4.4%, 7.8%) persons; the prevalence of at risk of inadequacy was similar. Persons with higher vitamin D dietary intake or who used supplements had lower prevalences of at risk of deficiency or inadequacy. From 2003 to 2014 there was no change in the risk of vitamin D deficiency; the risk of inadequacy declined from 21.0% (95% CI: 17.9%, 24.5%) to 17.7% (95% CI: 16.0%, 19.7%). The prevalence of at risk of vitamin D deficiency in the United States remained stable from 2003 to 2014; at risk of inadequacy declined. Differences in vitamin D status by race and Hispanic origin warrant additional investigation.

OBJECTIVE: An International Expert Committee (IEC) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) proposed diagnostic criteria for diabetes and pre-diabetes based on A1C levels. We hypothesized that screening for diabetes and pre-diabetes with A1C measurements would differ from using oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We compared pre-diabetes, dysglycemia (diabetes or pre-diabetes), and diabetes identified by the proposed criteria (A1C ≥6.5% for diabetes and 6.0–6.4% [IEC] or 5.7–6.4% [ADA] for high risk/pre-diabetes) with standard OGTT diagnoses in three datasets. Non-Hispanic white or black adults without known diabetes who had A1C and 75-g OGTT measurements were included from the prospective Screening for Impaired Glucose Tolerance study (n = 1,581), and from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III (n = 2014), and NHANES 2005–2006 (n = 1,111). RESULTS: OGTTs revealed pre-diabetes in 35.8% and diabetes in 5.2% of combined study subjects. A1C provided receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve areas for diabetes of 0.79–0.83, but ROC curve areas were ≤0.70 for dysglycemia or pre-diabetes. The proposed criteria missed 70% of individuals with diabetes, 71–84% with dysglycemia, and 82–94% with pre-diabetes. Compared with the IEC criteria, the ADA criteria for pre-diabetes resulted in fewer false-negative and more false-positive result. There were also racial differences, with false-positive results being more common in black subjects and false-negative results being more common in white subjects. With use of NHANES 2005–2006 data, ∼5.9 million non-Hispanic U.S. adults with unrecognized diabetes and 43–52 million with pre-diabetes would be missed by screening with A1C. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed A1C diagnostic criteria are insensitive and racially discrepant for screening, missing most Americans with undiagnosed diabetes and pre-diabetes.

Poor dental status negatively relates to dietary intakes. However, this issue has not been researched among the most vulnerable groups in society. We aimed to investigate, in a national low-income sample, the association between dental status and fruit and vegetable consumption. We analyzed data on adults aged 50 years and older from the Low Income Diet and Nutrition Survey, a representative sample of deprived UK households. Considerable numbers reported difficulty eating specific foods, with significantly worse experience among edentate than dentate people. The mean daily fruits and vegetables consumption was low (256.5 g for dentate, 207.1 g for edentate). After adjustment for socio-demographic and behavioral variables, edentate individuals consumed 50.7 g (27.0, 74.3) fewer fruits/vegetables per day than the dentate. Over and above the effects of material deprivation on nutrient intake, edentulism negatively relates to eating fruits and vegetables and achieving a healthy diet in materially deprived older adults.