Sun, QiShi, LingRimm, Eric Bruce::0ab2926c8242f35e5a982e3cf59f4987::600Giovannucci, Edward L.Hu, Frank B.Manson, JoAnn E.Rexrode, Kathryn M.2019-08-262011Sun, Qi, Ling Shi, Eric B Rimm, Edward L Giovannucci, Frank B Hu, JoAnn E Manson, and Kathryn M Rexrode. 2011. “Vitamin D Intake and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in US Men and Women.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 94 (2): 534–42. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.110.008763.0002-91651938-3207http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:41249159Background: Although studies have linked vitamin D deficiency to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), evidence regarding whether vitamin D intake from foods or supplements is prospectively associated with lower CVD risk in healthy humans is limited and inconclusive. Objective: The objective was to comprehensively evaluate the associations between both dietary and supplemental vitamin D and CVD risk. Design: In the Nurses' Health Study (1984-2006) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2006)-consisting of 74,272 women and 44,592 men, respectively, who were free of CVD and cancer at baseline-we prospectively examined the association between vitamin D intake and incident CVD. Results: Over a total of 2,280,324 person-years of follow-up, we identified 9886 incident cases of coronary heart disease and stroke. After multivariate adjustment for age and other CVD risk factors, a higher total vitamin D intake (from foods and supplements) was associated with a decreased risk of CVD in men but not in women; the relative risks (95% CIs) for a comparison of participants who met the Dietary Reference Intake of vitamin D (>= 600 IU/d) with participants whose vitamin D intake was <100 IU/d were 0.84 (0.72, 0.97; P for trend = 0.009) for men and 1.02 (0.89, 1.17; P for trend = 0.12) for women. Conclusions: These observations suggest that a higher intake of vitamin D is associated with a lower risk of CVD in men but not in women. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and to elucidate a biological basis for potential sex differences. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;94:534-42.en-USJournal Article2019-08-2610.3945/ajcn.110.008763