ReviewClinical kidney journal2026
Vitamin K and vascular calcification: from biological plausibility to clinical realism.
Review in Clinical kidney journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vitamin K has long been considered a potentially protective factor against ectopic calcification. This review summarizes the biological rationale and randomized clinical evidence for vitamin K supplementation as an anti-calcification strategy, with particular emphasis on chronic kidney disease. The concept is biologically plausible because vitamin K is required for post-translational γ-carboxylation and activation of matrix Gla protein, a key endogenous inhibitor of vascular and valvular calcification. Patients with chronic kidney disease frequently exhibit functional vitamin K deficiency and accelerated vascular and valvular calcification, providing a strong rationale for intervention trials. Randomized studies have therefore examined whether vitamin K1 or vitamin K2, mainly menaquinone-7, can slow progression of coronary, aortic, or valvular calcification. Overall, the evidence remains mixed. Both vitamin K1 and K2 supplementation consistently improves biochemical markers of vitamin K status. However, this biochemical response has not translated uniformly into attenuation of calcification progression on imaging. Across available randomized trials, vitamin K1 has generated the more consistent, although still heterogeneous, evidence for slowing imaging-based calcification progression, particularly in selected high-risk cohorts and in haemodialysis populations receiving intensive dosing. By contrast, vitamin K2 has not produced reproducible benefits on CT-based vascular or valvular calcification endpoints. Importantly, neither vitamin K1 nor vitamin K2 has demonstrated reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events or mortality. Where clinical events were collected, studies were underpowered and results were neutral. At present, vitamin K supplementation remains pharmacodynamically active but clinically unproven as a strategy to prevent cardiovascular endpoints in chronic kidney disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.