OBJECTIVE: It is well documented that there is wide variation in the response of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] to a given dose of vitamin D supplementation. Understanding factors affecting the response variation is important for identifying subjects who are susceptible to vitamin D deficiency or toxicity. This study aimed to evaluate potential predictors for vitamin D response variation. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1179 non-Hispanic white postmenopausal women were enrolled into a 4-yr calcium and vitamin D (1100 IU/d) clinical trial. Among them, serum 25(OH)D level of 1063 subjects were measured at both baseline and after 12 months treatment. Vitamin D response was computed for these 1063 subjects as the difference in levels of serum 25(OH)D concentration at the end of a 12-month vitamin D treatment compared with baseline. Stepwise linear regression was used to identify predictors of vitamin D response variation. RESULTS: Increase in vitamin D intake, baseline serum 25(OH)D level, baseline blood collection season, baseline serum calcium level, and baseline body mass index were predictors of vitamin D response variation. These five factors explained 46.8% of the vitamin D response variation in the 1063 subjects. The first three factors [increase in vitamin D intake, baseline serum 25(OH)D level, baseline blood collection season] remained as predictors in the 392 subjects with trial vitamin D supplementation. For the first time, our study indicated that season is an important prediction factor for vitamin D response variation. Subjects who started vitamin D treatment in a cold season (autumn and winter) achieved a significantly higher serum 25(OH)D increase than those started in a hot season (summer) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the increase in vitamin D supplementation, baseline serum 25(OH)D level, and the season when initiating the vitamin D supplementation can partially predict vitamin D response variation in non-Hispanic postmenopausal women.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: It is well documented that there is wide variation in the response of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] to a given dose of vitamin D supplementation. Understanding factors affecting the response variation is important for identifying subjects who are susceptible to vitamin D deficiency or toxicity. This study aimed to evaluate potential predictors for vitamin D response variation. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1179 non-Hispanic white postmenopausal women were enrolled into a 4-yr calcium and vitamin D (1100 IU/d) clinical trial. Among them, serum 25(OH)D level of 1063 subjects were measured at both baseline and after 12 months treatment. Vitamin D response was computed for these 1063 subjects as the difference in levels of serum 25(OH)D concentration at the end of a 12-month vitamin D treatment compared with baseline. Stepwise linear regression was used to identify predictors of vitamin D response variation. RESULTS: Increase in vitamin D intake, baseline serum 25(OH)D level, baseline blood collection season, baseline serum calcium level, and baseline body mass index were predictors of vitamin D response variation. These five factors explained 46.8% of the vitamin D response variation in the 1063 subjects. The first three factors [increase in vitamin D intake, baseline serum 25(OH)D level, baseline blood collection season] remained as predictors in the 392 subjects with trial vitamin D supplementation. For the first time, our study indicated that season is an important prediction factor for vitamin D response variation. Subjects who started vitamin D treatment in a cold season (autumn and winter) achieved a significantly higher serum 25(OH)D increase than those started in a hot season (summer) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the increase in vitamin D supplementation, baseline serum 25(OH)D level, and the season when initiating the vitamin D supplementation can partially predict vitamin D response variation in non-Hispanic postmenopausal women.
Authors: Dennis Wagner; Heather E Hanwell; Kareena Schnabl; Mehrdad Yazdanpanah; Samantha Kimball; Lei Fu; Gloria Sidhom; Dérick Rousseau; David E C Cole; Reinhold Vieth Journal: J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 4.292
Authors: Marieke B Snijder; Rob M van Dam; Marjolein Visser; Dorly J H Deeg; Jacqueline M Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Jaap C Seidell; Paul Lips Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2005-04-26 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Shanna Nesby-O'Dell; Kelley S Scanlon; Mary E Cogswell; Cathleen Gillespie; Bruce W Hollis; Anne C Looker; Chris Allen; Cindy Doughertly; Elaine W Gunter; Barbara A Bowman Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: N Binkley; R Novotny; D Krueger; T Kawahara; Y G Daida; G Lensmeyer; B W Hollis; M K Drezner Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2007-04-10 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Michael L Traub; John S Finnell; Anup Bhandiwad; Erica Oberg; Lena Suhaila; Ryan Bradley Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Simon Hsu; David K Prince; Kayleen Williams; Norrina B Allen; Gregory L Burke; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Xiaohui Li; Kiang J Liu; Robyn L McClelland; Erin D Michos; Bruce M Psaty; Steven J Shea; Kenneth M Rice; Jerome I Rotter; David Siscovick; Russell P Tracy; Karol E Watson; Bryan R Kestenbaum; Ian H de Boer Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Judy R Rees; Leila A Mott; Elizabeth L Barry; John A Baron; Roberd M Bostick; Jane C Figueiredo; Robert S Bresalier; Douglas J Robertson; Janet L Peacock Journal: J Nutr Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: K Uusi-Rasi; R Patil; S Karinkanta; K Tokola; P Kannus; C Lamberg-Allardt; H Sievänen Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 4.507