Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-9k7mv Total loading time: 0.404 Render date: 2022-01-17T04:33:29.714Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The 2011 report on dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2011

A. Catharine Ross*
Affiliation:
Department of Nutritional Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, 110 Chandlee Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802, USA
*
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letters to the Editor
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2011

Madam

The work of the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D has been completed; its report(1) was publicly released on 30 November 2010, and the committee is no longer constituted. The report can be found at http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D.aspx. Following National Academies procedures, the committee conducted its work free from external influences, including sponsors. The federal sponsors of the report included agencies of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the US Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Army, as well as Health Canada.

The report addresses a wide range of issues regarding both calcium and vitamin D. As context for the report it was widely recognized that, since publication of the first report on Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI)(2) including those for calcium and vitamin D, a great deal of new information has become available. Notably, a review by scientists in federal agencies in the USA and Canada(Reference Yetley, Brulé and Cheney3) determined that there was sufficient new information to justify a new assessment of DRI for vitamin D and calcium, and the IOM was asked to conduct this study. The process the IOM uses to constitute its committees follows strict rules, including disclosure, and seeks to achieve scientific balance and avoidance of conflicts of interest. The fourteen-member committeeFootnote * met these requirements. The expert committee started with a wide-open approach, thoroughly reviewing the literature, and obtained input from stakeholders through an open workshop and website. After completion of a draft report in 2010, the report underwent extensive review by external reviewers. The names of the reviewers and report monitors are listed in the final report.

The committee report is a consensus report and the process followed assured that the totality of the evidence guided the decisions that the committee made. The committee worked over a 20-month period during which it followed the task specified by the sponsors, which included that: the report would contain an extensive review of the literature; make use of systematic evidence-based reviews; be organized around a risk assessment model(4); and, if at all possible, specify the new DRI in terms of an Estimated Average Requirement (EAR), RDA and Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for fourteen age–sex groups that had previously been defined. It can be noted parenthetically that the 1997 report specified only Adequate Intakes (AI) for calcium and vitamin D, which do not have the same utility as EAR and RDA for use in programme evaluation and policy decisions(5Reference Otten, Pitzi Hellwig and Meyers8). It is important to fully understand the meaning of these terms in order to understand the types of evidence that can best support the development of DRI values. The IOM has published several previous reports specifically on the framework and various uses of DRI(5, 6). It is also important to recognize that DRI are meant for the general population and thus represent values that will minimize risk – both of inadequacy and excess – over long periods. Overall, DRI have an important role in reducing risk and improving public health. The DRI are not intended to provide recommendations for individuals with medical conditions where vitamin D or calcium metabolism is altered by disease, and medical management must be personalized.

The report on DRI for calcium and vitamin D provides, following a Summary, an overview of the DRI process and a discussion of the types and reliability of different research study designs, ranging from case reports to randomized controlled trials (RCT), and their utility in the process of DRI development (Chapter 1). It also discusses the two systematic evidence-based reviews that aided the committee and the additional investigations the committee conducted. Over 1000 publications were reviewed. The report then provides succinct background on the biochemistry and physiology of calcium (Chapter 2) and vitamin D (Chapter 3), and then proceeds to detail the evidence for about twenty-five different potential indicators of nutrient adequacy (including more than twenty health outcomes) for both calcium and vitamin D, each of which is reviewed in Chapter 4. As the report discusses, certain types of evidence, especially RCT data which can show causality, were considered the stronger types of evidence, but RCT data were not available for many potential indicators. The process was made more challenging by the fact that many studies, particularly those related to bone health, investigated both calcium and vitamin D combined, and very limited dose–response data were available for any of the potential indicators/outcomes. Moreover, many outcomes were studied in the context of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels, whereas DRI must be specified in terms of nutrient intakes. The report evaluates, discusses and explains the evidence that was used, presented in Chapter 4 and related appendices. The entire life cycle was considered, from birth to old age and including pregnancy and lactation. Of note, the DRI for vitamin D were derived based on conditions of minimal sun exposure due to wide variability in vitamin D synthesis from UV light and the risks of skin cancer. Chapter 5 presents the reasoning for specifying and the DRI values (EAR and RDA, or AI for children up to 1 year) for each of the age–sex groups to which DRI values are applied.

The question of excess is addressed with a literature review of potential indicators/outcomes and the rationale and specification of UL (Chapter 6). The report on calcium and vitamin D also provides a discussion of new dietary intake data and serum 25(OH)D levels in the USA and Canada (Chapter 7), implications for special populations (Chapter 8) and research needs (Chapter 9). The source of new data on vitamin D intakes and serum 25(OH)D levels in the population was the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and Health Canada. An important finding based on these data is that serum 25(OH)D levels in the USA and Canada are, by and large, at levels consistent with intakes of vitamin D at the RDA level, as specified in Chapter 5. Since dietary intakes (known to often be under-reported) averaged below the new RDA levels, it seems highly likely that sunlight plus total dietary intake, together, are maintaining serum 25(OH)D levels, even in northerly regions of the USA and Canada. Throughout the text, the report discusses in detail uncertainties and caveats. The committee also authored two publications that provide a synopsis of the report directed specifically to clinical(Reference Ross, Manson and Abrams9) and dietetic(Reference Ross, Manson and Abrams10) professionals.

In conclusion, we are sure that interested readers will find much in the new report that explains the process, the reasoning and the development of the new DRIs, and the identification of research priorities. As expected, new scientific information was the driving force for the new DRI. Although the committee was not charged with determining standardized values defining risk of deficiency, sufficiency or risk of toxicity for serum 25(OH)D for clinical laboratories, the report does note that no authoritative body has defined appropriate levels and it identifies consensus on this issue as an urgent need. Overall, while the 2011 report on DRI for calcium and vitamin D is now completed, it is expected that new science in the future will continue to probe the biological requirements for these important nutrients.

Footnotes

* This letter draws on the Institute of Medicine report, ‘Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D’ (2011), which was supported in part by the US Department of Health and Human Services, the US Department of Agriculture and Health Canada. It was prepared by a committee composed of Steven A. Abrams, John F. Aloia, Patsy M. Brannon, Steven K. Clinton, Ramon A. Durazo-Arvizu, J. Christopher Gallagher, Richard L. Gallo, Glenville Jones, Christopher S. Kovacs, JoAnn E. Manson, Susan T. Mayne, Clifford J. Rosen, Sue A. Shapses and the author of this letter. Any views not attributed to the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Institute of Medicine.

References

1.Institute of Medicine (2011) Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
2.Institute of Medicine (1997) Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
3.Yetley, EA, Brulé, D, Cheney, MC et al. (2009) Dietary Reference Intakes for vitamin D: justification for a review of the 1997 values. Am J Clin Nutr 89, 719727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.World Health Organization & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2006) A Model for Establishing Upper Levels of Intake for Nutrients and Related Substances: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Technical Workshop on Nutrient Risk Assessment, 2–6 May 2005. http://www.who.int/ipcs/highlights/nutrientproject_may18/en/index.html (accessed February 2011).Google Scholar
5.Institute of Medicine (2000) Dietary Reference Intakes: Applications in Dietary Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
6.Institute of Medicine (2003) Dietary Reference Intakes: Application in Dietary Planning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
7.Institute of Medicine (2008) The Development of DRIs 1994–2004: Lessons Learned and New Challenges. Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
8.Otten, JA, Pitzi Hellwig, J & Meyers, LD (2006) Dietary Reference Intakes: The Essential Guide to Nutrient Requirements. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
9.Ross, AC, Manson, JE, Abrams, SA et al. (2010) The 2011 report on dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine: what clinicians need to know. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96, 5358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Ross, AC, Manson, JE, Abrams, SA et al. (2011) The 2011 report on Dietary Reference Intakes for calcium and vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine: what dietetic practitioners need to know. J Am Diet Assoc (In the Press).Google Scholar
You have Access
154
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The 2011 report on dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The 2011 report on dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The 2011 report on dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *