ABSTRACT
Vitamin D and its biomarker 25(OH)D are known to vary by race/ethnicity with African Americans (AAs) having significantly lower levels than non-Hispanic whites (white Americans). However, AAs have better bone mineral density (BMD) and less arterial calcification, one marker of cardiovascular risk, than white Americans, with some studies showing higher vit. D levels harmful to AAs. This study analyzes NHANES data from 2011 to 2014, NHANES being a biennially published national survey of nearly 10,000 people, with interview, examination, and lab data components. The analyses, using count regression and linear regression models to avoid thresholding of variables, find that abdominal aortic calcification scores rise with 24(OH)D in white Americans, with no statistically significant effect in AAs; femoral BMD falls with 25(OH)D in both groups; osteoporotic fracture risks fall with 25(OH)D in white Americans; and periodontal attachment loss falls with rising 25(OH)D in both groups. Overall, higher 25(OH)D seems protective for oral and skeletal health in white Americans, protective for periodontal health in AAs, negative for their skeletal health, and negative for arterial calcification in white Americans, after controlling for the demographic factors of age and sex, the physiological elements of blood pressure and BMI, the biochemical variables of LDL and cholesterol levels, the socioeconomic indicators of income-to-poverty-level ratio and education levels, and the environmental influence of the season. As periodontitis is low on the disease hazard scale compared to arterial calcification and skeletal health, the results point to a lack of significant protection with rising OH(D) levels in AAs, even after their low base levels, and some harmful impact from those higher levels. That combination should trigger a closer look at the single population-wide vitamin D threshold of 30 to 50 ng/mL currently recommended in the US.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding involved.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Analyzing secondary data (NHANES data from CDC). No IRB approval needed.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Publicly available data from the CDC (the NHANES study).
