Skip to main content

Vitamin D in pediatrics: the need for precision medicine-based guidelines for screening, monitoring, and supplementation

Journal
Current opinion in pediatrics (Q1)
Published
28 July 2026
Study design
Randomized controlled trial
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
Authors
Benjamin Udoka Nwosu
PMID
42516057
DOI
10.1097/MOP.0000000000001599

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: About 7.6 million children and adolescents in the United States have vitamin D deficiency. There are significant consequences from low vitamin D states, including epigenetic modifications in utero that lead to diseases later in life. Current vitamin D guidelines are inadequate because they focus solely on the skeletal benefits of vitamin D, excluding its extra-skeletal functions. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent randomized controlled trials and large, long-term studies demonstrate the extra-skeletal benefits of vitamin D in type 1 diabetes, prediabetes, multiple sclerosis, telomere erosion, and cardiovascular health at higher serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] compared with the current recommended thresholds. These data call for a revision of current guidelines for vitamin D screening and supplementation. SUMMARY: Vitamin D is vital for health due to its skeletal and extra-skeletal functions. Extra-skeletal functions are less well known among medical personnel and the public. Thus, most of the world's population, especially children, have sustained suboptimal serum concentrations of 25(OH)D, which exert negative impacts on health across the lifespan. This Review provides the data and rationale for a comprehensive revision of vitamin D guidelines for fetuses, infants, children, and adolescents, using a precision medicine-based approach to address their skeletal and extra-skeletal needs.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.