Scholarlink

Background <p>Epidemiological data consistently associate low vitamin D status with elevated cardiovascular risk, yet causal mechanisms remain contested.</p> Methods <p>This review synthesized evidence through a protocol-guided approach, with database searches (PubMed/Embase/Web of Science; 2010–2024) focused on RCTs, mechanistic studies of cardiovascular pathways, and high-quality meta-analyses (AMSTAR-2 score ≥ 8).</p> Results <p>Mechanistic investigations consistently demonstrate vitamin D’s pleiotropic cardiovascular actions, including suppression of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, enhancement of endothelial nitric oxide bioavailability, and attenuation of vascular inflammation and fibrosis—effects validated in human models. In contrast, large-scale randomized trials and their meta-analyses have uniformly failed to demonstrate significant cardiovascular benefit from vitamin D supplementation in the general population. This discordance appears largely attributable to methodological limitations in trial design, particularly the inclusion of predominantly vitamin D-sufficient participants and the absence of stratification for baseline deficiency status or genetic determinants of vitamin D metabolism. Notably, post-hoc analyses suggest potential signal enrichment in cohorts with severe baseline deficiency, though these observations require prospective validation.</p> Conclusions <p>Current evidence does not support population-wide vitamin D supplementation for cardiovascular risk reduction. The persistent mechanistic-clinical disconnect underscores fundamental gaps in trial methodology rather than invalidating biological plausibility. Future research must prioritize precision nutrition frameworks that integrate baseline vitamin D status, dynamic response biomarkers, and genomic profiling to identify subgroups where supplementation may confer meaningful benefit. Until such evidence emerges from rigorously designed trials, clinical efforts should focus on correcting documented deficiencies in high-risk metabolic phenotypes, with cardiovascular outcomes regarded as potential secondary benefits rather than primary therapeutic targets.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The vitamin D-cardiovascular nexus unraveling mechanistic promise and trial reality

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月17日

查看全文
  • Hui Xu

摘要

Background

Epidemiological data consistently associate low vitamin D status with elevated cardiovascular risk, yet causal mechanisms remain contested.

Methods

This review synthesized evidence through a protocol-guided approach, with database searches (PubMed/Embase/Web of Science; 2010–2024) focused on RCTs, mechanistic studies of cardiovascular pathways, and high-quality meta-analyses (AMSTAR-2 score ≥ 8).

Results

Mechanistic investigations consistently demonstrate vitamin D’s pleiotropic cardiovascular actions, including suppression of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, enhancement of endothelial nitric oxide bioavailability, and attenuation of vascular inflammation and fibrosis—effects validated in human models. In contrast, large-scale randomized trials and their meta-analyses have uniformly failed to demonstrate significant cardiovascular benefit from vitamin D supplementation in the general population. This discordance appears largely attributable to methodological limitations in trial design, particularly the inclusion of predominantly vitamin D-sufficient participants and the absence of stratification for baseline deficiency status or genetic determinants of vitamin D metabolism. Notably, post-hoc analyses suggest potential signal enrichment in cohorts with severe baseline deficiency, though these observations require prospective validation.

Conclusions

Current evidence does not support population-wide vitamin D supplementation for cardiovascular risk reduction. The persistent mechanistic-clinical disconnect underscores fundamental gaps in trial methodology rather than invalidating biological plausibility. Future research must prioritize precision nutrition frameworks that integrate baseline vitamin D status, dynamic response biomarkers, and genomic profiling to identify subgroups where supplementation may confer meaningful benefit. Until such evidence emerges from rigorously designed trials, clinical efforts should focus on correcting documented deficiencies in high-risk metabolic phenotypes, with cardiovascular outcomes regarded as potential secondary benefits rather than primary therapeutic targets.