The Office of Dietary Supplements, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, all components of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, co-sponsored an expert panel meeting to discuss the vitamin D paradox in Black Americans. The paradox is that despite markedly low (or “deficient”) measures of vitamin D status in Black Americans, the incidence of falls, fractures, or osteopenia are significantly lower compared to White American counterparts with similar vitamin D status. Six panelists were invited to engage in guided discussions on the state of the science with respect to key knowledge gaps impacting vitamin D status and bone health. They were also asked to reflect on best approaches for advancing the science. A central theme throughout the discussions was that there may be many factors that impact Vitamin D levels in Black Americans and understanding these factors may be key to understanding mechanisms for improving bone health in all populations. Data presented showed that although adiposity, skin pigmentation, vitamin D binding protein polymorphisms, and genetics all contributed to differences in 25(OH)D levels in Black vs. White Americans, no one factor alone could fully explain the vitamin D paradox in Black Americans. However, the panelists did agree that the paradox is significant and warrants further investigation. There was consensus that Black Americans gained no skeletal benefits from high doses of vitamin D supplementation, and that high levels of the biomarker of vitamin D status, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D or 25(OH)D, in this population are almost certain to result in adverse effects. Some panelists proposed that additional studies are needed so that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) can better define the safe upper limits of vitamin D intake in this and other subpopulations. Others suggested a need for better, more generalizable biomarkers of bone health to advance the science.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) have recently gathered internal and external input towards a shared understanding of resilience in the wide context of human health and the biomedical sciences that would help accelerate advances in human health and its maintenance. This shared view is that resilience refers in general to a system's capacity to recover, grow, adapt, or resist perturbation from a challenge or stressor. Over time, a system's response to a challenge might show varied degrees of reactions that likely fluctuate in response to the type of challenge (internal and/or external), severity of the challenge, the length of time exposed to the challenge, other external factors and/or biological factors (innate and/or external). We have embarked on this special issue as an opportunity to explore commonalities amongst viewpoints on the science of resilience covered by the various NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices (ICOs) with respect to the characterization of various systems, stressors, outcomes measures and metrics, and interventions and/or protective factors that are shared within each domain and across multiple domains. Here, resilience is characterized broadly by four areas of scientific study: molecular/cellular, physiologic, psychosocial and spiritual, and environmental/community resilience. Each area or domain provides general frameworks for designing studies that may help advance the science of resilience within the context of health maintenance. This special issue will also acknowledge the remaining gaps that impede advancement of the science of resilience and offer considerations for potential next steps towards addressing the research gaps.

Immune health products represent approximately 10% of all US dietary supplement sales. Claims made on products to support or boost the immune system are attractive to the otherwise healthy consumer who may or may not be experiencing certain life stressors. The purpose of this systematic review is to critically evaluate the purported benefits and/or potential harms of select dietary supplement ingredients frequently listed on the labels of products having immune health or related market claims. With a focus on resilience, research questions were related to whether dietary supplement ingredients are efficacious in preserving and protecting immune health in healthy individuals; and when faced with a stressor, whether taking a supplement prophylactically can assist in maintaining health and resisting or bouncing back more quickly. Thirty-nine randomized controlled studies involving populations including children, adults and seniors exposed to stressors, such as air travel, intense exercise, academic stress, and/or exposure to winter weather, met eligibility criteria. The studies included eight of the 27 supplement ingredients identified through a market-driven scoping review. Those ingredients used in single ingredient products were echinacea, elderberry, garlic, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, and zinc. Whereas some studies may point to evidence for benefit, specific gaps preclude the authors from making firm statements with regard to the overall evidence-base for these products and ingredients and in answering the research questions. As we move toward a vision of health promotion and resilience rather than a sole focus on disease prevention and treatment, further work in this area of dietary supplements is of utmost importance.

Women tend to supplement their diets with multivitamin/mineral (MVM) supplements more often than men, and reports indicate that more than 90% of pregnant women in the United States supplement their diets with prenatal MVMs. Given the widespread use of MVMs among women and given the increasing efforts to unveil the importance of phenotype-specific health determinants, it seems imperative to review what is known about variations in nutrient physiology among women from different ethnic and racial groups and at different reproductive stages of life. In this study, we embark on an assessment of the scientific evidence and knowledge gaps that impact the precise determination of nutrient levels (specifically calcium, iron, and folic acid) that confer benefits to various subpopulations of women in the United States.

The National Institutes of Health have recently gathered internal and external input towards a shared understanding of resilience in the wide context of human health and the biomedical sciences that would help accelerate advances in human health and its maintenance. We suggest the current view that resilience refers in general to a system's capacity to recover, grow, adapt, or resist perturbation from a challenge or stressor. To help harmonize the design and reporting of resilience research studies across multiple domains we have developed and are proposing a Resilience Research Design (ResD) Tool. Researchers can use the Resilience ResD Tool to proceed through a flowchart of six questions that will guide identification of key features in a resilience research study. Through this special supplement, we have shown the application of the Resilience ResD Tool and suggest opportunities and gaps with respect to next steps towards operationalizing resilience research.