You are leaving Medscape Education
Cancel Continue
Log in to save activities Your saved activities will show here so that you can easily access them whenever you're ready. Log in here CME & Education Log in to keep track of your credits.
 

CME / ABIM MOC / CE

Could Obesity Affect the Response to Vitamin D Supplementation?

  • Authors: News Author: Nancy A. Melville; CME Author: Charles P. Vega, MD
  • CME / ABIM MOC / CE Released: 3/3/2023
  • Valid for credit through: 3/3/2024
Start Activity

  • Credits Available

    Physicians - maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™

    ABIM Diplomates - maximum of 0.25 ABIM MOC points

    Nurses - 0.25 ANCC Contact Hour(s) (0 contact hours are in the area of pharmacology)

    Pharmacists - 0.25 Knowledge-based ACPE (0.025 CEUs)

    Physician Assistant - 0.25 AAPA hour(s) of Category I credit

    IPCE - 0.25 Interprofessional Continuing Education (IPCE) credit

    You Are Eligible For

    • Letter of Completion
    • ABIM MOC points

Target Audience and Goal Statement

This activity is intended for primary care physicians, endocrinologists, pharmacists, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and other clinicians who care for adults considering vitamin D supplementation.

The goal of this activity is for members of the healthcare team to be better able to analyze how body mass index (BMI) may affect the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation.

Upon completion of this activity, participants will:

  • Evaluate results of a major trial of vitamin D in the prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer
  • Assess how BMI affected the results of vitamin D supplementation in this study
  • Outline implications for the healthcare team


Disclosures

Medscape, LLC requires every individual in a position to control educational content to disclose all financial relationships with ineligible companies that have occurred within the past 24 months. Ineligible companies are organizations whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, re-selling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

All relevant financial relationships for anyone with the ability to control the content of this educational activity are listed below and have been mitigated. Others involved in the planning of this activity have no relevant financial relationships.


News Author

  • Nancy A. Melville

    Freelance writer, Medscape

    Disclosures

    Nancy A. Melville has no relevant financial relationships.

CME Author

  • Charles P. Vega, MD

    Health Sciences Clinical Professor of Family Medicine
    University of California, Irvine School of Medicine

    Disclosures

    Charles P. Vega, MD, has the following relevant financial relationships:
    Consultant or advisor for: GlaxoSmithKline; Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.

Editor/Nurse Planner

  • Stephanie Corder, ND, RN, CHCP

    Associate Director, Accreditation and Compliance, Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Stephanie Corder, ND, RN, CHCP, has no relevant financial relationships.

Compliance Reviewer

  • Amanda Jett, PharmD, BCACP

    Associate Director, Accreditation and Compliance, Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Amanda Jett, PharmD, BCACP, has no relevant financial relationships.

Peer Reviewer

This activity has been peer reviewed and the reviewer has no relevant financial relationships.


Accreditation Statements



In support of improving patient care, Medscape, LLC is jointly accredited with commendation by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.

This activity was planned by and for the healthcare team, and learners will receive 0.25 Interprofessional Continuing Education (IPCE) credit for learning and change.

    For Physicians

  • Medscape, LLC designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ . Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

    Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to 0.25 MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. Participants will earn MOC points equivalent to the amount of CME credits claimed for the activity. It is the CME activity provider’s responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting ABIM MOC credit.

    Contact This Provider

    For Nurses

  • Awarded 0.25 contact hour(s) of nursing continuing professional development for RNs and APNs; 0.00 contact hours are in the area of pharmacology.

    Contact This Provider

    For Pharmacists

  • Medscape designates this continuing education activity for 0.25 contact hour(s) (0.025 CEUs) (Universal Activity Number: JA0007105-0000-23-068-H01-P).

    Contact This Provider

  • For Physician Assistants

    Medscape, LLC has been authorized by the American Academy of PAs (AAPA) to award AAPA Category 1 CME credit for activities planned in accordance with AAPA CME Criteria. This activity is designated for 0.25 AAPA Category 1 CME credits. Approval is valid until 03/03/2024. PAs should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation.

For questions regarding the content of this activity, contact the accredited provider for this CME/CE activity noted above. For technical assistance, contact [email protected]


Instructions for Participation and Credit

There are no fees for participating in or receiving credit for this online educational activity. For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board.

This activity is designed to be completed within the time designated on the title page; physicians should claim only those credits that reflect the time actually spent in the activity. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity online during the valid credit period that is noted on the title page. To receive AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™, you must receive a minimum score of 70% on the post-test.

Follow these steps to earn CME/CE credit*:

  1. Read about the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures.
  2. Study the educational content online or print it out.
  3. Online, choose the best answer to each test question. To receive a certificate, you must receive a passing score as designated at the top of the test. We encourage you to complete the Activity Evaluation to provide feedback for future programming.

You may now view or print the certificate from your CME/CE Tracker. You may print the certificate, but you cannot alter it. Credits will be tallied in your CME/CE Tracker and archived for 6 years; at any point within this time period, you can print out the tally as well as the certificates from the CME/CE Tracker.

*The credit that you receive is based on your user profile.

CME / ABIM MOC / CE

Could Obesity Affect the Response to Vitamin D Supplementation?

Authors: News Author: Nancy A. Melville; CME Author: Charles P. Vega, MDFaculty and Disclosures

CME / ABIM MOC / CE Released: 3/3/2023

Valid for credit through: 3/3/2024

processing....

Clinical Context

Vitamin D supplementation is a controversial area in health care, but a previous study by Manson and colleagues cast doubt on its benefits in the adult general population. The Vitamin D and Omega 3 Trial (VITAL) randomly assigned more than 25,000 adults to vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acid, or placebo, with the primary endpoints of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. The results for these outcomes were published in the January 3, 2019 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine.[1]

Overall, vitamin D was not associated with significant improvement vs placebo for incident CVD or cancer. In fact, it failed to improve the risk for any particular cancer as well as specific cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Vitamin D also did not improve mortality outcomes. Subgroup analyses generally failed to demonstrate any benefit for vitamin D, including among more than 5000 Black adults, but researchers did find a lower risk for cancer in the vitamin D vs placebo group among adults with a body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m2.

Previous research has suggested that vitamin D supplements are less impactful among overweight and obese adults. The current study by Tobias and colleagues revisits VITAL to assess this hypothesis.

Study Synopsis and Perspective

People who are overweight or have obesity appear to show a blunted response to vitamin D supplementation compared with normal-weight individuals in a new analysis of a randomized trial.

"There seems to be something different happening with vitamin D metabolism at higher body weights, and this study may help explain diminished outcomes of supplementation for individuals with an elevated body mass index (BMI)," said first author Deirdre K. Tobias, ScD, an associate epidemiologist in Brigham's Division of Preventive Medicine. She made the comments in a press statement issued with the study, published online this week in JAMA Network Open.[2]

The findings are from a post-hoc analysis of the large-scale Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which overall showed no benefits among persons randomly assigned to 5 years of vitamin D supplementation (2000 IU/d) vs placebo in terms of the primary endpoints of cancer or major CVD outcomes.

Nonetheless, prespecified secondary analyses according to body weight showed that persons of normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2) did have significant benefits from supplementation vs placebo in terms of cancer incidence (24% lower), cancer mortality (42% lower), and autoimmune disease (22% lower), although no corresponding benefits were observed among persons who were overweight or had obesity.

The new analysis adds important context to the trial's overall findings, notes Katherine N. Bachmann, MD, in an accompanying editorial.[3]

"Thanks to its very large sample size and detailed biomarker analyses, the current study is able to provide novel evidence that responses to vitamin D supplementation may be attenuated in individuals with overweight and obesity, and that this may contribute to the differential outcomes by BMI noted in the original VITAL," she wrote.

"Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose or circulating vitamin D level for individuals with obesity for nonskeletal health-related outcomes," added Bachmann, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.

New Analysis Examined Vitamin D and Biomarkers at Baseline and 2 Years

To take a closer look at the specific changes in vitamin D serum and biomarker levels between the different body weight groups, Tobias and colleagues evaluated data from 16,515 participants in the trial (of the 25,000 originally included in VITAL) and looked at changes in key vitamin D serum levels and biomarkers at baseline and follow-up.

Consistent with common observations of lower vitamin D levels with obesity, participants in the higher BMI categories had incrementally lower mean levels of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) before randomization, with levels ranging from 32.3 ng/mL for normal-weight individuals to 28 ng/mL for persons with obesity class II (P < .001 for a linear trend).

Baseline levels of other vitamin D biomarkers were also lower with higher BMI, including total 25-OHD 3, free vitamin D (FVD), and bioavailable vitamin D (BioD). Among 2742 participants with repeated blood collections at year 2, researchers observed significant mean increases overall at the end of the study period in serum 25-OHD levels (11.9 ng/mL) among persons randomly assigned to vitamin D supplementation compared with little change in the placebo group (−0.7 ng/mL).

There were also significant increases, overall, in mean total 25-OHD, 25-OHD3, FVD, and BioD levels at 2 years among persons receiving supplementation, with little or no change in the placebo group.

When stratified by BMI level, however, the magnitude of increase was lower among persons with higher baseline BMI (all treatment effect interactions, P < .001). For instance, the mean increases in total 25-OHD level at 2 years for supplementation vs placebo were 13.5 ng/mL for persons with a BMI < 25 kg/m2 vs only 10 ng/mL for persons with a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2.

Importantly, even after controlling for baseline vitamin D status of sufficiency or insufficiency, BMI was still significantly associated with changes seen with supplementation.

"It was surprising that even in the context of low vitamin D levels, persons with higher BMI still had a blunted response to supplementation, suggesting the interaction between supplementation and BMI with health outcomes is not simply due to higher prevalence of deficiency," Tobias told Medscape Medical News. "It really does seem that even with insufficient or low levels at baseline, those with higher BMI are not able to catch up to sufficient levels as well as those with normal BMI."

Mechanisms?

Among leading theories as to why higher BMI would be associated with lower serum vitamin D levels and a lower response to supplementation is that because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, the increased adiposity and fat storage capacity with higher BMI results in greater removal of the vitamin from circulation.

"Our results are largely consistent with this hypothesis," the authors noted.

They added that weight loss studies, including those involving bariatric surgery, have further shown greater increases in serum 25-OHD or circulating vitamin D levels after weight loss compared with baseline.

Other theories suggest that obesity-induced hepatic dysfunction can contribute to impaired vitamin D metabolism.

Without a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms, the potential for addressing the lower vitamin D levels with, for instance, higher doses of supplementation among those with obesity, also remains unclear, Tobias noted.

"I think once there's more clarity on what the mechanism is, then it would make sense to consider what doses could be necessary to achieve the internal levels desired," she said.

The VITAL study received funding from a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and other sources. The authors' complete disclosures are detailed in the published study.

Study Highlights

  • VITAL was a randomized 2 × 2 factorial trial comparing vitamin D 2000 IU/d, marine omega-3 fatty acids 1 g/d, and placebo among men at age ≥ 50 years and women at age ≥ 55 years. All participants were free of cancer and CVD at baseline.
  • Participants provided blood samples at baseline and 2 years after randomization. The main outcome of the current study was 25-OH-D levels, stratified by BMI. Researchers also followed free vitamin D, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and serum calcium levels.
  • Adults with a BMI of ≤ 12 kg/m2 or ≥ 60 kg/m2 were excluded from analysis.
  • 16,515 participants in VITAL were eligible for analysis. The mean age of participants was 67.7 ± 7 years, and 50.7% of participants were women. 76.9% of the cohort was White, and 15.1% were Black.
  • 40.5% of participants had overweight based on standard definitions by BMI, and 27% had obesity.
  • The baseline mean value of 25-OH-D was 30.6 ng/mL. There was a trend toward lower mean baseline 25-OH-D levels as BMI increased:
    • Underweight: 32.3 ng/mL
    • Normal weight: 32.3 ng/mL
    • Overweight: 30.5 ng/mL
    • Obesity class I: 29 ng/mL
    • Obesity class II: 28.0 ng/mL
  • Mean 25-OH-D levels had increased by 11.9 ± 8.6 ng/mL in the intervention group at 2 years, whereas there was a mean decrease in the placebo group of −0.7 ng/mL.
  • The mean 2-year increase in 25-OH-D in the intervention group declined as BMI increased:
    • Normal weight: 13.5 ± 0.6 ng/mL
    • Overweight: 12.7 ± 0.5 ng/mL
    • Obesity class I: 10.5 ± 0.7 ng/mL
    • Obesity class II: 10 ± 1 ng/mL
  • Vitamin D supplementation failed to affect levels of free vitamin D, PTH, or calcium. BMI was also not significantly associated with these outcomes.
  • A secondary analysis limited to participants with vitamin D deficiency at baseline found results similar to the main analysis, with lower 25-OH-D increases associated with vitamin D supplementation as BMI increased.

Clinical Implications

  • VITAL found that vitamin D supplements were not associated with significant improvement vs placebo for incident CVD or cancer. In fact, vitamin D failed to improve the risk for any particular cancer or specific CV outcomes. Vitamin D also did not improve mortality outcomes. Subgroup analyses generally failed to demonstrate any benefit for vitamin D, including among more than 5000 Black adults.
  • The current study by Tobias and colleagues found an inverse relationship between BMI and the increase in 25-OH-D associated with vitamin D supplements. Vitamin D supplementation failed to affect levels of free vitamin D, PTH, or calcium. BMI was also not significantly associated with these outcomes.
  • Implications for the healthcare team: The healthcare team should consider the potential modifying effects of BMI when recommending vitamin D supplementation.

 

Earn Credit

  • Print