Benefit–risk balance of native vitamin D supplementation in chronic hemodialysis: what can we learn from the major clinical trials and international guidelines?

Abstract For some years, there has been a great renewal of interest in native vitamin D and its major involvement in osseous and non-osseous effects in the organism. Patients in chronic hemodialysis (CHD) constitute a specific population with different physiopathologic characteristics and needs, since morbidity and mortality are strongly correlated with vitamin D insufficiency. Vitamin D supplementation raises very pertinent questions for which we have only partial answers and we lack solid scientific proof to establish certain truths. Thus, we try through this mini-review to analyze the results of the main randomized clinical trials conducted during the last decade, and to discuss international guidelines concerning native vitamin D supplementation in CHD patients. Seven double-blind randomized clinical trials have evaluated native Vitamin D supplementation in CHD patients. These clinical trials began between 2007 and 2013 and studied relatively small samples of patients with an average of 50. All of these trials are important, but do not provide sufficient scientific proof concerning the advantages, consequences, and secondary effects of native vitamin D supplementation in CHD. None of the European, American, English, Asian, Australian, or Canadian recommendations have specified the targets, doses, duration, or the molecule of vitamin D supplementation in the patient on CHD. In 2017, the long-awaited KDIGO recommendations were published and despite the results of clinical trials conducted, the recommendations on native vitamin D supplementation in CHD were very imprecise and sparse, limited to suggesting correction of any state of vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency