Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease Guideline Resources
Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline
JCEM | August 2024 (online June 2024)
Marie B. Demay (Chair), Anastassios G. Pittas (Co-Chair), Daniel D. Bikle, Dima L. Diab, Mairead E. Kiely, Marise Lazaretti-Castro, Paul Lips, Deborah M. Mitchell, M. Hassan Murad, Shelley Powers, Sudhaker D. Rao, Robert Scragg, John A. Tayek, Amy M. Valent, Judith M. E. Walsh, Christopher R. McCartney
The 2024 guideline on vitamin D for the prevention of disease:
Essential Points
- Numerous studies demonstrate an association 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. This has led to widespread supplementation with vitamin D supplementation and increased laboratory testing for 25(OH)D in the general population.
- The benefit-risk ratio of this increase in vitamin D supplementation is not clear, and the optimal vitamin D intake and serum 25(OH)D concentrations for disease prevention remain uncertain.
- This guideline offers clinical guidelines for the use of vitamin D to lower the risk of disease in individuals without established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25(OH)D testing.

List of Recommendation
Question 1. Should empiric vitamin D supplementation vs no empiric vitamin D supplementation be used for children and adolescents (ages 1-18 years)?
Recommendation 1
In children and adolescents ages 1-18 years, we suggest empiric vitamin D supplementation to prevent nutritional rickets and potentially lower the risk of respiratory tract infections. (2 | ⊕⊕OO)
- Empiric vitamin D may include daily intake of fortified foods, vitamin formulations that contain vitamin D and/or daily intake of a vitamin D supplement (pill or drops).
- In the clinical trials included in the SR, with respect to respiratory tract infections in children, vitamin D doses ranged from 300 to 2000 IU (7.5 to 50 μg) daily equivalent. The estimated weighted average was approximately 1200 IU (30 μg) per day.
Question 2. Should empiric vitamin D supplementation vs no empiric vitamin D supplementation be used for nonpregnant adults <50 years of age?
Recommendation 2
In the general adult population younger than age 50 years, we suggest against empiric vitamin D supplementation. (2 | ⊕◯◯◯)
- This recommendation relates to empiric vitamin D supplementation that exceeds the DRIs established by the IOM. Adults in this age group should follow the Recommended Daily Allowance established by the IOM (600 IU [15 µg] daily).
Question 3. Should vitamin D supplementation vs no vitamin D supplementation be used for nonpregnant adults <50 years of age only when 25(OH)D levels are below a threshold?
Recommendation 3
In the general adult population younger than age 50 years, we suggest against routine 25(OH)D testing. (2 | ⊕OOO)
- In this population, 25(OH)D levels that provide outcome-specific benefits have not been established in clinical trials.
- The panel suggests against (a) routine screening for a 25(OH)D level to guide decision-making (i.e., vitamin D vs no vitamin D) and (b) routine follow-up testing for 25(OH)D level to guide vitamin D dosing.
- This recommendation relates to generally healthy adults who do not otherwise have established indications for 25(OH)D testing (e.g., hypocalcemia).
Question 4. Should empiric vitamin D supplementation vs no empiric vitamin D supplementation be used for adults aged 50-74 years?
Recommendation 4
In the general population ages 50 to 74 years, we suggest against routine vitamin D supplementation. (2 | ⊕⊕⊕O)
- This recommendation relates to empiric vitamin D supplementation that exceeds the DRIs established by the IOM. Adults in this age group should follow the Recommended Daily Allowance established by the IOM (600 IU [15 μg] daily for those aged 50 to 70 years; 800 IU [20 μg] daily for those older than 70 years).
Question 5. Should vitamin D supplementation vs no vitamin D supplementation be used for adults aged 50-74 years only when 25(OH)D levels are below a threshold?
Recommendation 5
In the general population ages 50 to 74 years, we suggest against routine 25(OH)D testing. (2 | ⊕OOO)
- In this population, 25(OH)D levels that provide outcome-specific benefits have not been established in clinical trials.
- The panel suggests against (a) routine screening for a 25(OH)D level to guide decision-making (i.e., vitamin D vs no vitamin D) and (b) routine follow-up testing for 25(OH)D level to guide vitamin D dosing.
- This recommendation relates to generally healthy adults who do not otherwise have established indications for 25(OH)D testing (e.g., hypocalcemia).
Question 6. Should empiric vitamin D supplementation vs no empiric vitamin D supplementation be used by adults ages >75 years?
Recommendation 6
In the general population ages 75 years and older, we suggest empiric vitamin D supplementation because of the potential to lower the risk of mortality. (2 | ⊕⊕⊕O)
- Empiric vitamin D may include daily intake of fortified foods, vitamin formulations that contain vitamin D and/or daily intake of a vitamin D supplement.
- For empiric supplementation, daily, lower-dose vitamin D is preferred over non-daily, higher doses.
- In the clinical trials included in the SR that reported on the mortality outcome, vitamin D dose ranged from 400 to 3333 IU [10 to 83 μg] daily equivalent. The estimated weighted average was average was approximately 900 IU (23 μg) daily. Participants in many trials were allowed to remain on their routine supplements, including up to 800 IU (20 μg) of vitamin D daily.
Question 7. Should vitamin D supplementation vs no vitamin D supplementation be used by adults ages >75 years only when 25(OH)D levels are below a threshold?
Recommendation 7
In the general population ages 75 years and older, we suggest against routine testing for 25(OH)D levels. (2 | ⊕OOO)
