Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies demonstrate associations between serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and a variety of common disorders, including musculoskeletal, metabolic, cardiovascular, malignant, autoimmune, and infectious diseases. Although a causal link between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and many disorders has not been clearly established, these associations have led to widespread supplementation with vitamin D and increased laboratory testing for 25(OH)D in the general population. The benefit-risk ratio of this increase in vitamin D use is not clear, and the optimal vitamin D intake and the role of testing for 25(OH)D for disease prevention remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To develop clinical guidelines for the use of vitamin D (cholecalciferol [vitamin D3] or ergocalciferol [vitamin D2]) to lower the risk of disease in individuals without established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25(OH)D testing. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, along with experts in guideline methodology and systematic literature review, identified and prioritized 14 clinically relevant questions related to the use of vitamin D and 25(OH)D testing to lower the risk of disease. The panel prioritized randomized placebo-controlled trials in general populations (without an established indication for vitamin D treatment or 25[OH]D testing), evaluating the effects of empiric vitamin D administration throughout the lifespan, as well as in select conditions (pregnancy and prediabetes). The panel defined "empiric supplementation" as vitamin D intake that (a) exceeds the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) and (b) is implemented without testing for 25(OH)D. Systematic reviews queried electronic databases for publications related to these 14 clinical questions. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and guide recommendations. The approach incorporated perspectives from a patient representative and considered patient values, costs and resources required, acceptability and feasibility, and impact on health equity of the proposed recommendations. The process to develop this clinical guideline did not use a risk assessment framework and was not designed to replace current DRI for vitamin D. RESULTS: The panel suggests empiric vitamin D supplementation for children and adolescents aged 1 to 18 years to prevent nutritional rickets and because of its potential to lower the risk of respiratory tract infections; for those aged 75 years and older because of its potential to lower the risk of mortality; for those who are pregnant because of its potential to lower the risk of preeclampsia, intra-uterine mortality, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and neonatal mortality; and for those with high-risk prediabetes because of its potential to reduce progression to diabetes. Because the vitamin D doses in the included clinical trials varied considerably and many trial participants were allowed to continue their own vitamin D-containing supplements, the optimal doses for empiric vitamin D supplementation remain unclear for the populations considered. For nonpregnant people older than 50 years for whom vitamin D is indicated, the panel suggests supplementation via daily administration of vitamin D, rather than intermittent use of high doses. The panel suggests against empiric vitamin D supplementation above the current DRI to lower the risk of disease in healthy adults younger than 75 years. No clinical trial evidence was found to support routine screening for 25(OH)D in the general population, nor in those with obesity or dark complexion, and there was no clear evidence defining the optimal target level of 25(OH)D required for disease prevention in the populations considered; thus, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in all populations considered. The panel judged that, in most situations, empiric vitamin D supplementation is inexpensive, feasible, acceptable to both healthy individuals and health care professionals, and has no negative effect on health equity. CONCLUSION: The panel suggests empiric vitamin D for those aged 1 to 18 years and adults over 75 years of age, those who are pregnant, and those with high-risk prediabetes. Due to the scarcity of natural food sources rich in vitamin D, empiric supplementation can be achieved through a combination of fortified foods and supplements that contain vitamin D. Based on the absence of supportive clinical trial evidence, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in the absence of established indications. These recommendations are not meant to replace the current DRIs for vitamin D, nor do they apply to people with established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25(OH)D testing. Further research is needed to determine optimal 25(OH)D levels for specific health benefits.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines on Vitamin D.

CONTEXT: Low vitamin D status is common and is associated with various common medical conditions. OBJECTIVE: To support the development of the Endocrine Society's Clinical Practice Guideline on Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies that addressed 14 clinical questions prioritized by the guideline panel. Of the 14 questions, 10 clinical questions assessed the effect of vitamin D vs no vitamin D in the general population throughout the lifespan, during pregnancy, and in adults with prediabetes; 1 question assessed dosing; and 3 questions addressed screening with serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Electronic searches yielded 37 007 citations, from which we included 151 studies. In children and adolescents, low-certainty evidence suggested reduction in respiratory tract infections with empiric vitamin D. There was no significant effect on select outcomes in healthy adults aged 19 to 74 years with variable certainty of evidence. There was a very small reduction in mortality among adults older than 75 years with high certainty of evidence. In pregnant women, low-certainty evidence suggested possible benefit on various maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes. In adults with prediabetes, moderate certainty of evidence suggested reduction in the rate of progression to diabetes. Administration of high-dose intermittent vitamin D may increase falls, compared to lower-dose daily dosing. We did not identify trials on the benefits and harms of screening with serum 25(OH)D. CONCLUSION: The evidence summarized in this systematic review addresses the benefits and harms of vitamin D for the prevention of disease. The guideline panel considered additional information about individuals' and providers' values and preferences and other important decisional and contextual factors to develop clinical recommendations.

Navigating Complexities: Vitamin D, Skin Pigmentation, and Race.

Vitamin D plays a critical role in many physiological functions, including calcium metabolism and musculoskeletal health. This commentary aims to explore the intricate relationships among skin complexion, race, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels, focusing on challenges the Endocrine Society encountered during clinical practice guideline development. Given that increased melanin content reduces 25(OH)D production in the skin in response to UV light, the guideline development panel addressed the potential role for 25(OH)D screening in individuals with dark skin complexion. The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants' skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations. Lessons learned from the guideline development process emphasize the necessity of clarity when incorporating race and ethnicity into clinical guidelines. Such clarity is an essential step toward improving health outcomes and ensuring equitable healthcare practices.

Racial differences in measures of glycemia in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) Study: a secondary analysis of a randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding how race may influence the association between A1c and glycemia can improve diabetes screening. We sought to determine whether, for a given A1c level, glucose levels during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) differed by race. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: From data collected at 22 US clinical sites, we conducted a cross-sectional study of concurrently measured A1c and OGTT and observational longitudinal follow-up of the subset with high-risk pre-diabetes. Numerical integration methods were used to calculate area under the glycemic curve (AUCglu) during OGTT and least squares regression model to estimate A1c for a given AUCglu by race, controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: 1016 black, 2658 white, and 193 Asian persons at risk of diabetes were included in cross-sectional analysis. Of these, 2154 with high-risk pre-diabetes were followed for 2.5 years. For a given A1c level, AUCglu was lower in black versus white participants. After adjustment for potential confounders, A1c levels for a given AUCglu quintile were 0.15-0.20 and 0.02-0.19 percentage points higher in black and Asian compared with white participants, respectively (p<0.05). In longitudinal analyses, black participants were more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes by A1c than white participants (28% vs 10%, respectively; p<0.01). Black and Asian participants were less likely to be diagnosed by fasting glucose than white participants (16% vs 15% vs 37%, respectively; p<0.05). Black participants with A1c levels in the lower-level quintiles had greater increase in A1c over time compared with white participants. CONCLUSIONS: Use of additional testing beyond A1c to screen for diabetes may better stratify diabetes risk in the diverse US population.

Effect of vitamin D on regression to normal glucose regulation and individual glycemic measures: A secondary analysis among participants adherent to the trial protocol in the randomized clinical trial vitamin D and type 2 diabetes (D2d) study.

AIMS: To examine the effect of vitamin D on regression to normal glucose regulation (NGR) and individual glycemic measures in the D2d study. METHODS: In per-protocol analyses, we examined time to new-onset diabetes; time to new-onset NGR defined as first occurrence of: 2-or-3 glycemic criteria in the normal range (NGR-1) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 2-hour post-load-glucose (2hPG) in the normal range (NGR-2); proportion meeting NGR at the last study visit; and change in FPG, 2hPG, and HbA1c. RESULTS: Among 2423 participants, hazard ratio [HR] for diabetes was 0.84 [95%CI, 0.71, 0.99]). HR (95%CI) was 1.16 (0.99, 1.36) for new-onset NGR-1 and 1.06 (0.87, 1.30) for NGR-2. At the last visit, NGR-1 occurred in 12.4% vs. 9.5% participants in the vitamin D vs. placebo group (rate ratio for vitamin D 1.31 [1.02, 1.70]); whereas, NGR-2 occurred in 8.7% vs. 6.0% (rate ratio for vitamin D 1.45 [1.05, 2.00]). During follow-up, FPG, HbA1c, and 2hPG increased in both groups. Mean difference in FPG favored vitamin D (-0.80 mg/dL; 95%CI, -1.26, -0.33). CONCLUSIONS: In secondary analyses among participants adherent to the trial protocol, vitamin D lowered risk of developing diabetes and increased likelihood of NGR at the end of the study.

New-Onset Diabetes After COVID-19.

There is evidence suggesting that infection with SARS-CoV-2 can lead to several long-term sequelae including diabetes. This mini-review examines the rapidly evolving and conflicting literature on new-onset diabetes after COVID-19, which we term NODAC. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and medRxiv from inception until December 1, 2022, using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and free text words including "COVID-19," "SARS-CoV-2," "diabetes," "hyperglycemia," "insulin resistance," and "pancreatic ß-cell." We also supplemented searches by examining reference lists from retrieved articles. Current evidence suggests that COVID-19 increases the risk of developing diabetes, but the attributable risk is uncertain because of limitations of study designs and the evolving nature of the pandemic, including new variants, widespread population exposure to the virus, diagnostic options for COVID-19, and vaccination status. The etiology of diabetes after COVID-19 is likely multifactorial and includes factors associated with host characteristics (eg, age), social determinants of health (eg, deprivation index), and pandemic-related effects both at the personal (eg, psychosocial stress) and the societal-community level (eg, containment measures). COVID-19 may have direct and indirect effects on pancreatic ß-cell function and insulin sensitivity related to the acute infection and its treatment (eg, glucocorticoids); autoimmunity; persistent viral residency in multiple organs including adipose tissue; endothelial dysfunction; and hyperinflammatory state. While our understanding of NODAC continues to evolve, consideration should be given for diabetes to be classified as a post-COVID syndrome, in addition to traditional classifications of diabetes (eg, type 1 or type 2), so that the pathophysiology, natural history, and optimal management can be studied.

Indices of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in prediabetes and association with diabetes development in the vitamin D and type 2 diabetes study.

AIMS: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common comorbidity that leads to poor outcomes in people at high risk for development of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Vitamin D is a possible mediator. In the vitamin D and type 2 diabetes study (D2d), we investigated the relationship of baseline indices of NAFLD with incident T2D and whether the effect of vitamin D on diabetes was modified by NAFLD. METHODS: Cross-sectional associations of indices of NAFLD with glycemia and vitamin D status were assessed in 3972 individuals screened for the D2d study. In those with prediabetes randomized to vitamin D or placebo (n = 2423), we examined longitudinal associations of NAFLD indices with incident T2D. We used validated non-invasive scores to assess steatosis [(hepatic steatosis index (HSI); NAFLD-liver fat score (NAFLD-LFS)] and advanced fibrosis [fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index; AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI)]. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent of screened participants had likely steatosis by HSI and 71 % by NAFLD-LFS; 3 % were likely to have advanced fibrosis by FIB-4 and 1.2 % by APRI. FIB-4 indicated that 20.4 % of individuals require further follow up to assess liver health. Steatosis and fibrosis scores were higher among participants with worse glycemia. The NAFLD-LFS and APRI predicted development of diabetes (hazard ratios [95%CI] 1.35 [1.07, 1.70]; P = 0.012) and 2.36 (1.23, 4.54; P = 0.010), respectively). The effect of vitamin D on diabetes risk was not modified by baseline NAFLD indices. Individuals with likely steatosis had a smaller increase in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in response to vitamin D than those without steatosis. CONCLUSIONS: The predicted high prevalence of steatosis, the need for further fibrosis workup, and the relationship between liver health and incident T2D suggest that routine screening with clinically accessible scores may be an important strategy to reduce disease burden.

Effect of intratrial mean 25(OH)D concentration on diabetes risk, by race and weight: an ancillary analysis in the D2d study.

BACKGROUND: Higher serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] is associated with lower type 2 diabetes risk. 25(OH)D varies due to skin pigmentation and weight. OBJECTIVES: This analysis aims to determine whether the effect of vitamin D differs among people of color and those with overweight/obesity (who have higher diabetes risk) compared with individuals who are White or have normal weight. METHODS: The D2d study is a randomized clinical trial in people with prediabetes that tested the effects of daily vitamin D3 4000 IU vs. placebo on diabetes risk (median followup 2.5 y). We compared baseline and intratrial mean 25(OH)D concentrations, defined as the mean of all available annual 25(OH)D values, among groups defined by self-reported race and body mass index (BMI). We used Cox proportional hazards models to assess the associations between intratrial mean 25(OH)D and diabetes risk by race- and BMI-based groups. RESULTS: Asian (n=130), Black (n=616), and White (n=1616) participants were included. Both baseline and intratrial mean 25(OH)D concentrations differed significantly by race groups (both P < 0.001) and were lower in Asian and Black vs. White participants, and in those with higher vs. lower BMI adjusted for race (both P < 0.001). Compared with those with lower concentrations, Black and White participants with intratrial mean 25(OH)D ≥ 40 ng/mL had significantly reduced diabetes risk [HR (95% CI): Black: 0.51 (0.29, 0.92); White: 0.42 (0.30, 0.60)] and with a similar reduction in diabetes risk among Asian participants: 0.39 (0.14, 1.11). Compared with those with lower concentrations, participants with baseline BMI < 40 kg/m2 who achieved intratrial mean 25(OH)D concentrations ≥ 40 ng/mL had a significantly reduced diabetes risk. There was no statistically significant interaction between intratrial 25(OH)D and race or between intratrial 25(OH)D and BMI on diabetes risk. CONCLUSIONS: Among people with prediabetes, particularly for Black and White race groups and those with BMI < 40 kg/m2, the optimal 25(OH)D concentration may be ≥ 40 ng/mL to optimize diabetes-prevention efforts. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01942694.

Vitamin D and Risk for Type 2 Diabetes in People With Prediabetes : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data From 3 Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: The role of vitamin D in people who are at risk for type 2 diabetes remains unclear. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether administration of vitamin D decreases risk for diabetes among people with prediabetes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception through 9 December 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible trials that were specifically designed and conducted to test the effects of oral vitamin D versus placebo on new-onset diabetes in adults with prediabetes. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was time to event for new-onset diabetes. Secondary outcomes were regression to normal glucose regulation and adverse events. Prespecified analyses (both unadjusted and adjusted for key baseline variables) were conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three randomized trials were included, which tested cholecalciferol, 20 000 IU (500 mcg) weekly; cholecalciferol, 4000 IU (100 mcg) daily; or eldecalcitol, 0.75 mcg daily, versus matching placebos. Trials were at low risk of bias. Vitamin D reduced risk for diabetes by 15% (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75 to 0.96]) in adjusted analyses, with a 3-year absolute risk reduction of 3.3% (CI, 0.6% to 6.0%). The effect of vitamin D did not differ in prespecified subgroups. Among participants assigned to the vitamin D group who maintained an intratrial mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of at least 125 nmol/L (≥50 ng/mL) compared with 50 to 74 nmol/L (20 to 29 ng/mL) during follow-up, cholecalciferol reduced risk for diabetes by 76% (hazard ratio, 0.24 [CI, 0.16 to 0.36]), with a 3-year absolute risk reduction of 18.1% (CI, 11.7% to 24.6%). Vitamin D increased the likelihood of regression to normal glucose regulation by 30% (rate ratio, 1.30 [CI, 1.16 to 1.46]). There was no evidence of difference in the rate ratios for adverse events (kidney stones: 1.17 [CI, 0.69 to 1.99]; hypercalcemia: 2.34 [CI, 0.83 to 6.66]; hypercalciuria: 1.65 [CI, 0.83 to 3.28]; death: 0.85 [CI, 0.31 to 2.36]). LIMITATIONS: Studies of people with prediabetes do not apply to the general population. Trials may not have been powered for safety outcomes. CONCLUSION: In adults with prediabetes, vitamin D was effective in decreasing risk for diabetes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42020163522).

Effect of vitamin D supplementation on circulating fibroblast growth factor-23 concentration in adults with prediabetes.

BACKGROUND: Recent meta-analyses report that vitamin D supplementation increases blood fibroblast growth factor-23 (FGF23) level. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of 4000 IU/day of vitamin D3 for 12 months on circulating FGF23 levels. We also examined the association of the achieved 25-hydroxyvitamin D level [25(OH)D] with the FGF23 level at 12 months and with 12-month changes in FGF23. METHODS: An ancillary analysis among adults 70 years and older with prediabetes who participated in a trial comparing vitamin D3 4000 IU/day with placebo. Plasma intact FGF23 and serum 25(OH)D were measured at baseline and month 12 (M12). RESULTS: Characteristics of the 52 participants (vitamin D3 n = 28; placebo n = 24) did not differ significantly aside from more women than men in the vitamin D3 group. Mean ± SD age was 73.8 ± 3.7 years, BMI 31.3 ± 4.2 kg/m2, and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) 76.3 ± 11.8 mL/min/1.73m2 Baseline serum 25(OH)D level was 33.4 ± 10.8 ng/mL and increased at M12 to 54.9 ± 14.8 ng/mL in the vitamin D3 group versus 33.4 ± 14.9 in the placebo (p < 0.001). At baseline, GFR was inversely associated with FGF23 (r = - 0.349, p = 0.011). Change in FGF23 level at M12 did not differ significantly between vitamin D3 and placebo. In all participants combined, the achieved serum 25(OH)D level at M12 was not significantly associated with the M12 plasma FGF23 or the M12 change in FGF23. CONCLUSION: In obese older adults with sufficient vitamin D status and normal renal function, vitamin D3 4000 IU/day for 12 months did not significantly alter plasma intact FGF23 levels. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT 01,942,694, registered 9/16/2013.

The effect of vitamin D supplementation on cardiovascular risk in patients with prediabetes: A secondary analysis of the D2d study.

AIMS: Low blood 25(OH)D level is associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Additionally, individuals with prediabetes are at higher risk for CVD than individuals with normoglycemia. We investigated the effects of vitamin D supplementation on CVD outcomes in the vitamin D and type 2 diabetes (D2d) study, a large trial among adults with prediabetes. METHODS: 2423 participants were randomized to 4000 IU/day of vitamin D3 or placebo and followed for median 3.0 years for new-onset diabetes. In pre-specified secondary analyses, we examined the effect of vitamin D supplementation on composite Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE); expanded MACE (MACE + revascularization); atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk score; and individual CVD risk factors (blood pressure, lipids, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein). Cox models compared hazard ratios (HR) between the two groups on MACE and expanded MACE. RESULTS: Mean age was 60 years, 45 % were women, 13 % had history of CVD. Twenty-one participants assigned to vitamin D and 12 participants assigned to placebo met the MACE outcome (HR 1.81, 95%CI 0.89 to 3.69). There were 27 expanded MACE outcomes in each group (HR 1.02, 95%CI, 0.59 to 1.76). There were no significant differences between vitamin D and placebo in individual CVD risk factors, but change in ASCVD risk score favored the vitamin D group (-0.45 %, 95%CI -0.75 to -0.15). CONCLUSIONS: In people with prediabetes not selected for vitamin D insufficiency and with intermediate CVD risk, vitamin D supplementation did not decrease MACE but had a small favorable effect on ASCVD risk score. TRIAL REGISTRATION: D2d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01942694, prospectively registered September 16, 2013.

Safety and tolerability of high-dose daily vitamin D3 supplementation in the vitamin D and type 2 diabetes (D2d) study-a randomized trial in persons with prediabetes.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Routine use of vitamin D supplements has increased substantially in the United States. However, the safety and tolerability of long-term use of high-dose vitamin D are not known. We assessed the safety and tolerability of high-dose, daily vitamin D3 in the vitamin D and type 2 diabetes (D2d) study. SUBJECTS/METHODS: In total, 2423 overweight/obese persons with prediabetes were randomized in a double-blind manner to either 4000 IU of vitamin D3 (the tolerable upper intake level for adults by the National Academy of Medicine) taken daily or matching placebo. All participants were included in this analysis. Incident adverse events (AE) were ascertained 4 times a year at in-person visits (twice a year) and interim remote encounters (twice a year) and were defined as untoward or unfavorable medical occurrences. Serious adverse events (SAE) included death, life-threatening events, and hospitalizations. RESULTS: A total of 8304 AEs occurred during 3 years of follow-up and were less frequent in the vitamin D group compared to placebo (Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR] = 0.94; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.90, 0.98). The overall frequency of protocol-specified AEs of interest, which included nephrolithiasis, hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, or low estimated glomerular filtration rate, was low and did not differ by group. There were no significant between-group differences in total SAEs (IRR = 0.96 (0.81, 1.14)). CONCLUSION: Vitamin D3 supplementation at 4000 IU per day was safe and well tolerated among overweight/obese participants at high risk for diabetes who were appropriately monitored for safety. In this population, this dose of vitamin D3 did not increase risk of AEs or SAEs, including those previously associated with vitamin D such as hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, or nephrolithiasis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01942694, prospectively registered September 16, 2013.

Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation on Insulin Sensitivity and Secretion in Prediabetes.

CONTEXT: Vitamin D regulates glucose homeostasis pathways, but effects of vitamin D supplementation on ß-cell function remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on insulin sensitivity and ß-cell function. METHODS: This is a prespecified secondary analysis of the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes study. Overweight/obese adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes (prediabetes) were randomly treated with vitamin D3 4000 IU or matching placebo daily for 24 months. MAIN OUTCOME: Disposition index (DI), as an estimate of ß-cell function, was calculated as the product of Homeostasis Model Assessment 2 indices derived from C-peptide values (HOMA2%Scpep) and C-peptide response during the first 30 minutes of a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). RESULTS: Mean age was 60.5 ± 9.8 years and body mass index was 31.9 ± 4.4 kg/m2. Mean serum 25(OH)D level increased from 27.9 ± 10.3 ng/mL at baseline to 54.9 ng/mL at 2 years in the vitamin D group and was unchanged (28.5 ± 10.0 ng/mL) in the placebo group. The baseline DI predicted incident diabetes independent of the intervention. In the entire cohort, there were no significant differences in changes in DI, HOMA2%Scpep, or C-peptide response between the 2 groups. Among participants with baseline 25(OH)D level <12 ng/mL, the mean percent differences for DI between the vitamin D and placebo groups was 8.5 (95% CI, 0.2-16.8). CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation with vitamin D3 for 24 months did not improve an OGTT-derived index of ß-cell function in people with prediabetes not selected based on baseline vitamin D status; however, there was benefit among those with very low baseline vitamin D status.

An Electronic Health Record-Compatible Model to Predict Personalized Treatment Effects From the Diabetes Prevention Program: A Cross-Evidence Synthesis Approach Using Clinical Trial and Real-World Data.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an electronic health record (EHR)-based risk tool that provides point-of-care estimates of diabetes risk to support targeting interventions to patients most likely to benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A risk prediction model was developed and validated in a large observational database of patients with an index visit date between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016, with treatment effect estimates from risk-based reanalysis of clinical trial data. The risk model development cohort included 1.1 million patients with prediabetes from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (OLDW); the validation cohort included a distinct sample of 1.1 million patients in OLDW. The randomly assigned clinical trial cohort included 3081 people from the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) study. RESULTS: Eleven variables reliably obtainable from the EHR were used to predict diabetes risk. This model validated well in the OLDW (C statistic = 0.76; observed 3-year diabetes rate was 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 1.9) in the lowest-risk quarter and 19.6% (19.4 to 19.8) in the highest-risk quarter). In the DPP, the hazard ratio (HR) for lifestyle modification was constant across all levels of risk (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.53), whereas the HR for metformin was highly risk dependent (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.61 to 2.0 in the lowest-risk quarter vs HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.59 in the highest-risk quarter). Fifty-three percent of the benefits of population-wide dissemination of the DPP lifestyle modification and 73% of the benefits of population-wide metformin therapy can be obtained by targeting the highest-risk quarter of patients. CONCLUSION: The Tufts-Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness DPP Risk model is an EHR-compatible tool that might support targeted diabetes prevention to more efficiently realize the benefits of the DPP interventions.

Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Kidney Function in Adults with Prediabetes: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration has been associated with higher levels of proteinuria and lower levels of eGFR in observational studies. In the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) study, we investigated the effect of vitamin D supplementation on kidney outcomes in a population with prediabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Overweight/obese adults with high risk for type 2 diabetes (defined by meeting two of three glycemic criteria for prediabetes) were randomized to vitamin D3 4000 IU per day versus placebo. Median duration of treatment was 2.9 years (interquartile range 2.0-3.5 years). Kidney outcomes included (1) worsening in Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO ) risk score (low, moderate, high, very high) on two consecutive follow-up visits after the baseline visit and (2) mean changes in eGFR and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). RESULTS: Among 2166 participants (mean age 60 years, body mass index 32 kg/m2, serum 25(OH)D 28 ng/ml, eGFR 87 ml/min per 1.73 m2, UACR 11 mg/g, 79% with hypertension), 10% had moderate, high, or very high KDIGO risk score. Over a median follow-up of 2.9 years, there were 28 cases of KDIGO worsening in the vitamin D group and 30 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.52 to 1.52]). Mean difference in eGFR from baseline was -1.0 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (95% CI, -1.3 to -0.7) in the vitamin D group and -0.1 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (95% CI, -0.4 to 0.2) in the placebo group; between-group difference was -1.0 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (95% CI, -1.4 to -0.6). Mean difference in UACR was 2.7 mg/g (95% CI, 1.2 to 4.3) in the vitamin D group and 2.0 (95% CI, 0.5 to 3.6) in the placebo group; between-group difference was 0.7 mg/g (95% CI, -1.5 to 2.9). CONCLUSIONS: Among persons with prediabetes, who were not preselected on the basis of serum 25(OH)D concentration, vitamin D supplementation did not affect progression of KDIGO risk scores and did not have a meaningful effect on change in UACR or eGFR.

Randomized trial of a novel lifestyle intervention compared with the Diabetes Prevention Program for weight loss in adult dependents of military service members.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle interventions are the first-line treatment for obesity, but participant weight loss is typically low. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the efficacy of an alternative lifestyle intervention [Healthy Weight for Living (HWL)] compared with a modified Diabetes Prevention Program (m-DPP). HWL was based on a revised health behavior change model emphasizing hunger management and the development of healthy food preferences. m-DPP was a standard Diabetes Prevention Program implemented with counselor time matched to HWL. Participants were adult dependents of military personnel and had overweight or obesity. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to HWL (n = 121) or m-DPP (n = 117), delivered primarily by group videoconference with additional midweek emails. The primary outcome was 12-mo weight change. Secondary outcomes included 6-mo changes in cardiometabolic risk factors and diet. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and complete case (CC) analyses were performed using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Retention did not differ between groups (72% and 66% for HWL and m-DPP at 12 mo, respectively; P = 0.30). Mean ± SE adjusted 12-mo weight loss in the ITT cohort was 7.46 ± 0.85 kg for HWL and 7.32 ± 0.87 kg for m-DPP (P = 0.91); in the CC cohort, it was 7.83 ± 0.82 kg for HWL and 6.86 ± 0.88 kg for m-DPP (P = 0.43). Thirty-eight percent of HWL and 30% of m-DPP completers achieved ≥10% weight loss (P = 0.32). Improvements in systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting glucose, general health, sleep, and mood were similar across groups; improvements in diastolic blood pressure were greater in m-DPP. Adjusted group mean reductions in energy intake were not significantly different between groups, but HWL participants were more adherent to their dietary prescription for lower glycemic index and high fiber and protein (P = 0.05 to <0.001 for ITT). CONCLUSIONS: HWL and m-DPP showed equivalent and clinically impactful mean weight loss with cardiometabolic benefits. These results identify an alternative approach for behavioral treatment of overweight and obesity.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02348853.