The vitamin D grey areas in pediatric primary care. Very low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in asymptomatic children living in northeastern Italy

Abstract

The principal questions about the vitamin D topic are far to be resolved: in which children 25-hydroxyvitamin D blood testing is appropriate and how much cholecalciferol should be given in the absence of the test? Analyzing vitamin D status in a group of children cared by a "family pediatrician" in northeastern Italy we noted a high incidence of deficiency in asymptomatic preschool children without risk factors. As routine vitamin D testing is not recommended in the average risk population the supplementation with cholecalciferol represents a "grey area" mostly in pediatric primary care.

Dear Editor,

we read with interest the article by Bener and Hoffmann on the incidence of nutritional rickets in a sun rich country like Qatar [1], where decreased vitamin D was a major risk factor. Hypovitaminosis D is highly prevalent in children throughout the world [2, 3] but it is still not clear what is the best practice in pediatric primary care settings. Michael Holick, a recognized expert on the topic, has stated that "there is no need to measure everybody's blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D" [25(OH)D] and that only patients with particular diseases should be screened for vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency [4]. Although the literature has shown that patients with deficiency are much less frequent than those with insufficiency, it is also remarkable that vitamin D deficiency is often subclinical and depending on local situations; for example it may be associated with overweight [5] or underweight [1]. To our knowledge there are only a few studies on children living in northeastern Italy [6–8]: they have been conducted retrospectively [6] or examining patients afferent to a Pediatric Department [7] or asthmatic [8]. On this basis an analysis of vitamin D status was prospectively conducted in children cared by a "family pediatrician" in a rural area near Padua (45° N latitude). In 65 patients the vitamin D test was included in exams ordered for different reasons (suspected anemia, fatigue, poor growth, etc.) between November 2010 and June 2011. Results were retrieved from 58 children (age range 1.1-15.3 years, median age 6.75 years). Serum 25(OH)D was dosed by chemiluminescence; the laboratory normal range was 75-250 nmol/l (30-99 ng/ml); insufficiency was defined as 25-74 nmol/l (10-29 ng/ml), deficiency as < 25 nmol/l (< 10 ng/ml).

Most of the children (77%) had low serum 25(OH)D levels: 38 of them (66% of all patients) had an insufficiency and 7 (12%) had a deficiency. Moreover, 29 children (50%) had 25(OH)D < 50 nmol/l (< 20 ng/ml) that is the cut-off recently suggested to diagnose vitamin D deficiency [5, 9].

None among the 9 young teens (11-15 years) had a normal value of 25(OH)D and 6 of the 7 children with 25(OH)D < 25 nmol/l (< 10 ng/ml) were between ages 2 and 5 years; this deficiency was asymptomatic in 5/6 cases. Moreover, our children with 25(OH)D ≥ 75 nmol/l (≥ 30 ng/ml) and those with deficiency didn't differ for exposure to sunlight, food consumption, gender, ethnicity or BMI. Vitamin D status was also irrespective of other blood test results (see Table 1).

Table 1 Vitamin D status of cases based on laboratory reference ranges (plain text columns) and on recent literature [5, 9] (bold columns)

Holick has suggested that "it would be much more cost-effective to implement a vitamin D supplementation program for all children and adults" [4] but the question now is how much vitamin D should be given. If 400 IU cholecalciferol per day may be sufficient in the first year of life [10], much more is needed in older children, assuming that most of them have less or much less than the minimum desirable [11]. Moreover, recommended doses of 600 IU per day [12] probably offer no advantage to children with 25(OH)D < 25 nmol/l (< 10 ng/ml) [13]. Although authoritative guidelines state that routine vitamin D testing is not warranted in the average risk population, the Holick's D-lemma [4] is far from being resolved.