LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Large Joints and Extremities/Osteoporosis, Cardiology Organizations Issue Calcium Guideline
Large Joints and Extremities

Osteoporosis, Cardiology Organizations Issue Calcium Guideline

November 9, 2016 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Osteoporosis, Cardiology Organizations Issue Calcium Guideline
Photo creation by RRY Publications, LLC
Secondary

A new evidence-based guideline from the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) and the American Society for Preventive Cardiology (ASPC) says that calcium with or without vitamin D intake from food or supplements that does not exceed 2, 000 to 2, 500 mg/day should be considered safe from a cardiovascular standpoint.

A total of 31 studies were reviewed by researchers from the Tufts University School of Medicine. According to the October 24, 2016 news release, “Of the four randomized trials reviewed, none found a statistically significant difference in risk for cardiovascular events or mortality between groups receiving supplements of calcium alone or calcium plus vitamin D compared to those receiving placebo. None of the 27 cohort studies included in the review conclusively linked total, dietary, or supplemental calcium intake levels to cardiovascular disease and cerebrovascular disease, mortality, or all-cause mortality. Because excessive calcium intake is nearly impossible to achieve via diet, safety of supplementation had been an area of concern. Of the three supplementation-specific trials included in the review, none found a statistically significant effect of calcium supplementation on cardiovascular disease outcomes. Based on this moderate-quality evidence, the review team concluded that calcium intake from food or supplement sources at levels within the recommended tolerable range should be considered safe for generally healthy adults.”

Andrea Singer, M.D., NOF clinical director and trustee, told OTW, “Given the confusion on this topic, the NOF felt it was very important to partner with the ASPC to review all of the science currently available around the health risks and benefits of calcium intake from food and/or supplements on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease incidence, mortality, and all-cause mortality in generally healthy adults to determine what is known at this time and how to help those who treat osteoporosis patients with recommendations for calcium and vitamin D intake. From a cardiovascular standpoint, calcium intake from food or supplements at levels within the recommended tolerable range of 2, 000 to 2, 500 mg per day is safe for generally healthy adults.”

“There is moderate-quality evidence (B level) that calcium with or without vitamin D intake from food or supplements has no relationship (beneficial or harmful) to the risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, mortality, or all-cause mortality in generally healthy adults at this time. As NOF has always said, ‘Calcium from food sources is preferred, but supplements can be used to address dietary shortfalls.’”

“We hope these new clinical guidelines will help all healthcare professionals address patient concerns about calcium intake from food and supplements. We know that calcium is essential for bone health and there is evidence to show its benefit to fracture prevention among high-risk individuals. We must help patients understand the need for dietary calcium and that they should only supplement for any shortfall in their diet.”

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy