Nutrients

The Proposed Vitamin D-Homocysteine Relationship in Cardiometabolic Health: A Narrative Review of Mechanisms, Evidence, and Research Phenotypes

Figure 1. Proposed bidirectional vitamin D–homocysteine crosstalk, shared vascular pathways, and related clinical evidence.
Open the figure at full size
Figure 1. Proposed bidirectional vitamin D–homocysteine crosstalk, shared vascular pathways, and related clinical evidence.Proposed bidirectional vitamin D–homocysteine crosstalk, shared vascular pathways, and related clinical evidence.Lee et al.
Follow

Abstract

The clinical relevance of a proposed relationship between vitamin D status and homocysteine remains uncertain. This narrative review integrates mechanistic, observational, Mendelian randomization (MR), and trial evidence. A documented supplementary search of PubMed and Europe PMC was executed on 21 September 2026 for publications through 31 July 2026; no formal risk-of-bias assessment or quantitative synthesis was performed. Experimental studies support vitamin D-dependent regulation of homocysteine metabolism and homocysteine-related suppression of vitamin D signaling, but reciprocal regulation has not been established in humans. Human biomarker associations and supplementation effects on homocysteine are heterogeneous; two frequently cited intervention publications report the same trial. Additional longitudinal and multibiomarker studies provide preliminary outcome associations, without externally validating the proposed four-category classification or its treatment utility. Homocysteine MR signals are more consistent for stroke than coronary disease, subject to validity and multiplicity concerns. Vitamin D MR is predominantly null, including the republished stratified analysis, and large supplementation trials have not demonstrated consistent cardiovascular benefit. A combined folate-vitamin D cognitive trial did not demonstrate its primary intention-to-treat benefit and does not validate vascular treatment selection. Clinical outcome trials carry greater weight for treatment decisions than molecular plausibility or biomarker co-occurrence. The proposed classification and explanatory models remain hypothesis-generating: a clinically meaningful reciprocal axis and differential benefit from phenotype-guided combined nutritional intervention are unproven.