The etiology of endemic rickets was discovered a century ago. Vitamin D is the precursor of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and other metabolites, including 1,25(OH)₂D, the ligand for the vitamin D receptor (VDR). The effects of the vitamin D endocrine system on bone and its growth plate are primarily indirect and mediated by its effect on intestinal calcium transport and serum calcium and phosphate homeostasis. Rickets and osteomalacia can be prevented by daily supplements of 400 IU of vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D <50 nmol/L) accelerates bone turnover, bone loss, and osteoporotic fractures. These risks can be reduced by 800 IU of vitamin D together with an appropriate calcium intake, given to institutionalized or vitamin D–deficient elderly subjects. VDR and vitamin D metabolic enzymes are widely expressed. Numerous genetic, molecular, cellular, and animal studies strongly suggest that vitamin D signaling has many extraskeletal effects. These include regulation of cell proliferation, immune and muscle function, skin differentiation, and reproduction, as well as vascular and metabolic properties. From observational studies in human subjects, poor vitamin D status is associated with nearly all diseases predicted by these extraskeletal actions. Results of randomized controlled trials and Mendelian randomization studies are supportive of vitamin D supplementation in reducing the incidence of some diseases, but, globally, conclusions are mixed. These findings point to a need for continued ongoing and future basic and clinical studies to better define whether vitamin D status can be optimized to improve many aspects of human health. Vitamin D deficiency enhances the risk of osteoporotic fractures and is associated with many diseases. We review what is established and what is plausible regarding the health effects of vitamin D.

The 6th International Conference, “Controversies in Vitamin D,” was convened to discuss controversial topics, such as vitamin D metabolism, assessment, actions, and supplementation. Novel insights into vitamin D mechanisms of action suggest links with conditions that do not depend only on reduced solar exposure or diet intake and that can be detected with distinctive noncanonical vitamin D metabolites. Optimal 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels remain debated. Varying recommendations from different societies arise from evaluating different clinical or public health approaches. The lack of assay standardization also poses challenges in interpreting data from available studies, hindering rational data pooling and meta-analyses. Beyond the well-known skeletal features, interest in vitamin D's extraskeletal effects has led to clinical trials on cancer, cardiovascular risk, respiratory effects, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, and mortality. The initial negative results are likely due to enrollment of vitamin D-replete individuals. Subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested, nevertheless, potential benefits in reducing cancer incidence, autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular events, and diabetes. Oral administration of vitamin D is the preferred route. Parenteral administration is reserved for specific clinical situations. Cholecalciferol is favored due to safety and minimal monitoring requirements. Calcifediol may be used in certain conditions, while calcitriol should be limited to specific disorders in which the active metabolite is not readily produced in vivo. Further studies are needed to investigate vitamin D effects in relation to the different recommended 25(OH)D levels and the efficacy of the different supplementary formulations in achieving biochemical and clinical outcomes within the multifaced skeletal and extraskeletal potential effects of vitamin D.

Genomic actions induced by 1α25-dihydroxyvitamin D₃ [1,25(OH)₂D₃] are crucial for normal bone metabolism, mainly because they regulate active intestinal calcium transport. To evaluate whether the vitamin D receptor (VDR) has a specific role in growth-plate development and endochondral bone formation, we investigated mice with conditional inactivation of VDR in chondrocytes. Growth-plate chondrocyte development was not affected by the lack of VDR. Yet vascular invasion was impaired, and osteoclast number was reduced in juvenile mice, resulting in increased trabecular bone mass. In vitro experiments confirmed that VDR signaling in chondrocytes directly regulated osteoclastogenesis by inducing receptor activator of NF-κB ligand (RANKL) expression. Remarkably, mineral homeostasis was also affected in chondrocyte-specific VDR-null mice, as serum phosphate and 1,25(OH)₂D levels were increased in young mice, in whom growth-plate activity is important. Both in vivo and in vitro analysis indicated that VDR inactivation in chondrocytes reduced the expression of FGF23 by osteoblasts and consequently led to increased renal expression of 1α-hydroxylase and of sodium phosphate cotransporter type IIa. Taken together, our findings provide evidence that VDR signaling in chondrocytes is required for timely osteoclast formation during bone development and for the endocrine action of bone in phosphate homeostasis.

Vitamin D and all its metabolites are bound to a specific vitamin D binding protein, DBP. This protein was originally first discovered by its worldwide polymorphism and called Group-specific Component (GC). We now know that DBP and GC are the same protein and appeared early in the evolution of vertebrates. DBP is genetically the oldest member of the albuminoid family (including albumin, α-fetoprotein and afamin, all involved in transport of fatty acids or hormones). DBP has a single binding site for all vitamin D metabolites and has a high affinity for 25OHD and 1,25(OH)2D, thereby creating a large pool of circulating 25OHD, which prevents rapid vitamin D deficiency. DBP of higher vertebrates (not amphibians or reptiles) binds with very high affinity actin, thereby preventing the formation of polymeric actin fibrils in the circulation after tissue damage. Megalin is a cargo receptor and is together with cubilin needed to reabsorb DBP or the DBP-25OHD complex, thereby preventing the urinary loss of these proteins and 25OHD. The total concentrations of 25OHD and 1,25(OH)2D in DBP null mice or humans are extremely low but calcium and bone homeostasis remain normal. This is the strongest argument for claiming that the “free hormone hypothesis” also applies to the vitamin D hormone, 1,25(OH)2D. DBP also transports fatty acids, and can play a role in the immune system. DBP is genetically very polymorphic with three frequent alleles (DBP/GC 1f, 1s, and 2) but in total more than 120 different variants but its health consequences, if any, are not understood. A standardization of DBP assays is essential to further explore the role of DBP in physiology and diseases.

Background Global concern about vitamin D deficiency has fuelled debates on photoprotection and the importance of solar exposure to meet vitamin D requirements. Objectives To review the published evidence to reach a consensus on the influence of photoprotection by sunscreens on vitamin D status, considering other relevant factors. Methods An international panel of 13 experts in endocrinology, dermatology, photobiology, epidemiology and biological anthropology reviewed the literature prior to a 1‐day meeting in June 2017, during which the evidence was discussed. Methods of assessment and determining factors of vitamin D status, and public health perspectives were examined and consequences of sun exposure and the effects of photoprotection were assessed. Results A serum level of ≥ 50 nmol L⁻¹ 25(OH)D is a target for all individuals. Broad‐spectrum sunscreens that prevent erythema are unlikely to compromise vitamin D status in healthy populations. Vitamin D screening should be restricted to those at risk of hypovitaminosis, such as patients with photosensitivity disorders, who require rigorous photoprotection. Screening and supplementation are advised for this group. Conclusions Sunscreen use for daily and recreational photoprotection does not compromise vitamin D synthesis, even when applied under optimal conditions. What's already known about this topic? Knowledge of the relationship between solar exposure behaviour, sunscreen use and vitamin D is important for public health but there is confusion about optimal vitamin D status and the safest way to achieve this. Practical recommendations on the potential impact of daily and/or recreational sunscreens on vitamin D status are lacking for healthy people. What does this study add? Judicious use of daily broad‐spectrum sunscreens with high ultraviolet (UV) A protection will not compromise vitamin D status in healthy people. However, photoprotection strategies for patients with photosensitivity disorders that include high sun‐protection factor sunscreens with high UVA protection, along with protective clothing and shade‐seeking behaviour are likely to compromise vitamin D status. Screening for vitamin D status and supplementation are recommended in patients with photosensitivity disorders.