This article summarizes the new 2011 report on dietary requirements for calcium and vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine (IOM). An IOM Committee charged with determining the population needs for these nutrients in North America conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence for both skeletal and extraskeletal outcomes. The Committee concluded that available scientific evidence supports a key role of calcium and vitamin D in skeletal health, consistent with a cause-and-effect relationship and providing a sound basis for determination of intake requirements. For extraskeletal outcomes, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders, the evidence was inconsistent, inconclusive as to causality, and insufficient to inform nutritional requirements. Randomized clinical trial evidence for extraskeletal outcomes was limited and generally uninformative. Based on bone health, Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs; covering requirements of ≥97.5% of the population) for calcium range from 700 to 1300 mg/d for life-stage groups at least 1 yr of age. For vitamin D, RDAs of 600 IU/d for ages 1–70 yr and 800 IU/d for ages 71 yr and older, corresponding to a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of at least 20 ng/ml (50 nmol/liter), meet the requirements of at least 97.5% of the population. RDAs for vitamin D were derived based on conditions of minimal sun exposure due to wide variability in vitamin D synthesis from ultraviolet light and the risks of skin cancer. Higher values were not consistently associated with greater benefit, and for some outcomes U-shaped associations were observed, with risks at both low and high levels. The Committee concluded that the prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy in North America has been overestimated. Urgent research and clinical priorities were identified, including reassessment of laboratory ranges for 25-hydroxyvitamin D, to avoid problems of both undertreatment and overtreatment.

Intestinal calcium absorption assessed by a double-isotope method, decreased significantly with aging in 94 normal subjects (r = −0.22, P < 0.025). In 52 untreated patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis, calcium absorption was significantly lower than normal when either age or habitual calcium intake was used as a covariable (P < 0.001). Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH-D) and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)₂D) were measured in 44 normal subjects and 27 osteoporotic patients. For all normals, calcium absorption and serum 1,25(OH)₂D were positively correlated (r = 0.50, P < 0.001). In nonelderly normal subjects (ages 30-65 yr), dietary calcium intake correlated inversely with both calcium absorption (r = −0.39, P < 0.01) and with serum 1,25(OH)₂D (r = −0.50, P < 0.01). Both osteoporotic patients and elderly normal subjects (ages 65-90 yr) differed from nonelderly normals in that these correlations were not present. In addition although serum 25-OH-D was normal, serum 1,25(OH)₂D was significantly decreased in both osteoporotic patients and elderly normals (P < 0.001). In osteoporotic patients, calcium absorption increased significantly (P < 0.001) after 7 d administration of a small dose (0.4 μg/d) of synthetic 1,25(OH)₂D₃. In osteoporotics mean serum immunoreactive parathyroid hormone was either normal (COOH-terminal assay) or low (NH₂-terminal assay) relative to age-matched controls, and mean serum phosphate was increased. The data suggest that inadequate metabolism of 25-OH-D to 1,25(OH)₂D contributes significantly to decreased calcium absorption and adaptation in both osteoporotics and elderly normal subjects. In patients with osteoporosis this abnormality could result from a decrease in factors that normally stimulate 1,25(OH)₂D production, such as the decreased parathyroid hormone secretion and increased serum phosphate demonstrated in this group. In elderly subjects a primary abnormality in metabolism of 25-OH-D to 1,25(OH)₂D, analagous to that seen in aging rats, cannot be excluded.

Denosumab treatment for 24 months increased bone mineral density (BMD) and reduced bone turnover markers (BTM) in postmenopausal women. The aim was to determine the effects of prior denosumab or placebo injections on BMD, BTM, and safety over 24 months after treatment discontinuation. We conducted an off-treatment extension of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. A total of 256 postmenopausal women with a mean age of 59 yr and a mean lumbar spine T-score of -1.61 at randomization participated in the study. Participants received placebo or 60 mg denosumab every 6 months for 24 months, followed by 24 months off treatment. We measured the percentage changes in BMD and BTM, and evaluated safety. Of the 256 participants enrolled in the posttreatment phase, 87% completed the study. During 24 months of denosumab treatment, BMD increased (lumbar spine, 6.4%; total hip, 3.6%; 1/3 radius, 1.4%), and BTM decreased (serum C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen, 63%; and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen, 47%), compared with placebo. After discontinuation, BMD declined, but the previously treated denosumab group maintained higher BMD than the previously treated placebo group at these sites (P ≤ 0.05). Final BMD at month 48 strongly correlated with month 0 BMD. After denosumab discontinuation, BTM increased above baseline within 3 months (serum C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen) or 6 months (N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen) and returned to baseline by month 48. Adverse event rates during the off-treatment phase were similar between groups. In postmenopausal women with low BMD, the effects of 60 mg denosumab treatment for 24 months on BMD and BTM are reversible upon discontinuation, reflecting its biological mechanism of action. Residual BMD measurements remained above those of the group previously treated with placebo.

In early 2011, a committee convened by the Institute of Medicine issued a report on the Dietary Reference Intakes for calcium and vitamin D. The Endocrine Society Task Force in July 2011 published a guideline for the evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency. Although these reports are intended for different purposes, the disagreements concerning the nature of the available data and the resulting conclusions have caused confusion for clinicians, researchers, and the public. In this commentary, members of the Institute of Medicine committee respond to aspects of The Endocrine Society guideline that are not well supported and in need of reconsideration. These concerns focus on target serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, the definition of vitamin D deficiency, and the question of who constitutes a population at risk vs. the general population.

Endometriosis is a chronic, estrogen-dependent condition that causes dysmenorrhea and pelvic pain. Elagolix, an oral, nonpeptide, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, produced partial to nearly full estrogen suppression in previous studies. We performed two similar, double-blind, randomized, 6-month phase 3 trials (Elaris Endometriosis I and II [EM-I and EM-II]) to evaluate the effects of two doses of elagolix — 150 mg once daily (lower-dose group) and 200 mg twice daily (higher-dose group) — as compared with placebo in women with surgically diagnosed endometriosis and moderate or severe endometriosis-associated pain. The two primary efficacy end points were the proportion of women who had a clinical response with respect to dysmenorrhea and the proportion who had a clinical response with respect to nonmenstrual pelvic pain at 3 months. Each of these end points was measured as a clinically meaningful reduction in the pain score and a decreased or stable use of rescue analgesic agents, as recorded in a daily electronic diary. A total of 872 women underwent randomization in Elaris EM-I and 817 in Elaris EM-II; of these women, 653 (74.9%) and 632 (77.4%), respectively, completed the intervention. At 3 months, a significantly greater proportion of women who received each elagolix dose met the clinical response criteria for the two primary end points than did those who received placebo. In Elaris EM-I, the percentage of women who had a clinical response with respect to dysmenorrhea was 46.4% in the lower-dose elagolix group and 75.8% in the higher-dose elagolix group, as compared with 19.6% in the placebo group; in Elaris EM-II, the corresponding percentages were 43.4% and 72.4%, as compared with 22.7% (P<0.001 for all comparisons). In Elaris EM-I, the percentage of women who had a clinical response with respect to nonmenstrual pelvic pain was 50.4% in the lower-dose elagolix group and 54.5% in the higher-dose elagolix group, as compared with 36.5% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for all comparisons); in Elaris EM-II, the corresponding percentages were 49.8% and 57.8%, as compared with 36.5% (P=0.003 and P<0.001, respectively). The responses with respect to dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain were sustained at 6 months. Women who received elagolix had higher rates of hot flushes (mostly mild or moderate), higher levels of serum lipids, and greater decreases from baseline in bone mineral density than did those who received placebo; there were no adverse endometrial findings. Both higher and lower doses of elagolix were effective in improving dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain during a 6-month period in women with endometriosis-associated pain. The two doses of elagolix were associated with hypoestrogenic adverse effects. (Funded by AbbVie; Elaris EM-I and EM-II ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01620528 and NCT01931670.)