Heike A. Bischoff-Ferrari

Bio: Heike A. Bischoff-Ferrari is an academic researcher from University of Zurich. The author has contributed to research in topics: Vitamin D and neurology & vitamin D deficiency. The author has an hindex of 60, co-authored 227 publications receiving 33681 citations. Previous affiliations of Heike A. Bischoff-Ferrari include Harvard University & Tufts University.

Evaluation, Treatment, and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Abstract: Objective: The objective was to provide guidelines to clinicians for the evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency with an emphasis on the care of patients who are at risk for deficiency. Participants: The Task Force was composed of a Chair, six additional experts, and a methodologist. The Task Force received no corporate funding or remuneration. Consensus Process: Consensus was guided by systematic reviews of evidence and discussions during several conference calls and e-mail communications. The draft prepared by the Task Force was reviewed successively by The Endocrine Society's Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee, Clinical Affairs Core Committee, and cosponsoring associations, and it was posted on The Endocrine Society web site for member review. At each stage of review, the Task Force received written comments and incorporated needed changes. Conclusions: Considering that vitamin D deficiency is very common in all age groups and that few foods contain vitamin D, the Task Force recomme...

Evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency: An endocrine society clinical practice guideline (Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (2011) 96, (1911-1930))

Abstract: OBJECTIVE The objective was to provide guidelines to clinicians for the evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency with an emphasis on the care of patients who are at risk for deficiency. PARTICIPANTS The Task Force was composed of a Chair, six additional experts, and a methodologist. The Task Force received no corporate funding or remuneration. CONSENSUS PROCESS Consensus was guided by systematic reviews of evidence and discussions during several conference calls and e-mail communications. The draft prepared by the Task Force was reviewed successively by The Endocrine Society's Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee, Clinical Affairs Core Committee, and cosponsoring associations, and it was posted on The Endocrine Society web site for member review. At each stage of review, the Task Force received written comments and incorporated needed changes. CONCLUSIONS Considering that vitamin D deficiency is very common in all age groups and that few foods contain vitamin D, the Task Force recommended supplementation at suggested daily intake and tolerable upper limit levels, depending on age and clinical circumstances. The Task Force also suggested the measurement of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level by a reliable assay as the initial diagnostic test in patients at risk for deficiency. Treatment with either vitamin D(2) or vitamin D(3) was recommended for deficient patients. At the present time, there is not sufficient evidence to recommend screening individuals who are not at risk for deficiency or to prescribe vitamin D to attain the noncalcemic benefit for cardiovascular protection.

Fracture Prevention With Vitamin D Supplementation: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract: ContextThe role and dose of oral vitamin D supplementation in nonvertebral fracture prevention have not been well established.ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in preventing hip and nonvertebral fractures in older persons.Data SourcesA systematic review of English and non-English articles using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960-2005), and EMBASE (1991-2005). Additional studies were identified by contacting clinical experts and searching bibliographies and abstracts presented at the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (1995-2004). Search terms included randomized controlled trial (RCT), controlled clinical trial, random allocation,double-blind method, cholecalciferol,ergocalciferol,25-hydroxyvitamin D, fractures, humans, elderly, falls, and bone density.Study SelectionOnly double-blind RCTs of oral vitamin D supplementation (cholecalciferol, ergocalciferol) with or without calcium supplementation vs calcium supplementation or placebo in older persons (≥60 years) that examined hip or nonvertebral fractures were included.Data ExtractionIndependent extraction of articles by 2 authors using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators.Data SynthesisAll pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. Five RCTs for hip fracture (n = 9294) and 7 RCTs for nonvertebral fracture risk (n = 9820) met our inclusion criteria. All trials used cholecalciferol. Heterogeneity among studies for both hip and nonvertebral fracture prevention was observed, which disappeared after pooling RCTs with low-dose (400 IU/d) and higher-dose vitamin D (700-800 IU/d), separately. A vitamin D dose of 700 to 800 IU/d reduced the relative risk (RR) of hip fracture by 26% (3 RCTs with 5572 persons; pooled RR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.88) and any nonvertebral fracture by 23% (5 RCTs with 6098 persons; pooled RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.87) vs calcium or placebo. No significant benefit was observed for RCTs with 400 IU/d vitamin D (2 RCTs with 3722 persons; pooled RR for hip fracture, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88-1.50; and pooled RR for any nonvertebral fracture, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86-1.24).ConclusionsOral vitamin D supplementation between 700 to 800 IU/d appears to reduce the risk of hip and any nonvertebral fractures in ambulatory or institutionalized elderly persons. An oral vitamin D dose of 400 IU/d is not sufficient for fracture prevention.

Effect of Vitamin D on falls: a meta-analysis

Abstract: ContextFalls among elderly individuals occur frequently, increase with age, and lead to substantial morbidity and mortality. The role of vitamin D in preventing falls among elderly people has not been well established.ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of vitamin D in preventing an older person from falling.Data SourcesMEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from January 1960 to February 2004, EMBASE from January 1991 to February 2004, clinical experts, bibliographies, and abstracts. Search terms included trial terms: randomized-controlled trial or controlled-clinical trial or random-allocation or double-blind method, or single-blind method or uncontrolled-trials with vitamin D terms: cholecalciferol or hydroxycholecalciferols or calcifediol or dihydroxycholecalciferols or calcitriol or vitamin D/aa[analogs & derivates] or ergocalciferol or vitamin D/bl[blood]; and with accidental falls or falls, and humans.Study SelectionWe included only double-blind randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D in elderly populations (mean age, 60 years) that examined falls resulting from low trauma for which the method of fall ascertainment and definition of falls were defined explicitly. Studies including patients in unstable health states were excluded. Five of 38 identified studies were included in the primary analysis and 5 other studies were included in a sensitivity analysis.Data ExtractionIndependent extraction by 3 authors using predefined data fields including study quality indicators.Data SynthesisBased on 5 RCTs involving 1237 participants, vitamin D reduced the corrected odds ratio (OR) of falling by 22% (corrected OR, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.92) compared with patients receiving calcium or placebo. From the pooled risk difference, the number needed to treat (NNT) was 15 (95% CI, 8-53), or equivalently 15 patients would need to be treated with vitamin D to prevent 1 person from falling. The inclusion of 5 additional studies, involving 10 001 participants, in a sensitivity analysis resulted in a smaller but still significant effect size (corrected RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96). Subgroup analyses suggested that the effect size was independent of calcium supplementation, type of vitamin D, duration of therapy, and sex, but reduced sample sizes made the results statistically nonsignificant for calcium supplementation, cholecalciferol, and among men.ConclusionsVitamin D supplementation appears to reduce the risk of falls among ambulatory or institutionalized older individuals with stable health by more than 20%. Further studies examining the effect of alternative types of vitamin D and their doses, the role of calcium supplementation, and effects in men should be considered.

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Vitamin D Deficiency

Abstract: Once foods in the United States were fortified with vitamin D, rickets appeared to have been conquered, and many considered major health problems from vitamin D deficiency resolved. But vitamin D deficiency is common. This review considers the role of vitamin D in skeletal and nonskeletal health and suggests strategies for the prevention and treatment of vitamin D deficiency.