Armin Zittermann1, Jana B Ernst, Jan F Gummert, Jochen Börgermann. 1. Clinic for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart and Diabetes Centre North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Ruhr University Bochum, Georgstr. 11, 32545, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany, azittermann@hdz-nrw.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is considerable variation in incremental circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels on vitamin D supplements, even when similar age groups and identical vitamin D doses are compared. We therefore aimed to investigate the importance of body weight for the dose-response relation in circulating 25OHD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled vitamin D supplementation trials in all age groups ≥10 years to clarify the influence of body weight and other parameters on incremental circulating 25OHD levels (difference between baseline and in-study values) in vitamin D-deficient and non-deficient individuals. RESULTS: We included 144 cohorts from 94 independent studies, published from 1990 to November 2012, in our systematic review. There was a logarithmic association between vitamin D dose per kg body weight per day and increment in circulating 25OHD. In multivariable regression analysis, vitamin D dose per kg body weight per day could explain 34.5% of variation in circulating 25OHD. Additional significant predictors were type of supplement (vitamin D2 or vitamin D3), age, concomitant intake of calcium supplements and baseline 25OHD, explaining 9.8, 3.7, 2.4 and 1.9%, respectively, of the variation in circulating 25OHD. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrates that body weight is an important predictor of variation in circulating 25OHD in cohorts on vitamin D supplements. Our model provides an estimate of the daily vitamin D dose that is necessary for achieving adequate circulating 25OHD levels in vitamin D-insufficient or vitamin D-deficient individuals/cohorts with different body weights and ages.
PURPOSE: There is considerable variation in incremental circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels on vitamin D supplements, even when similar age groups and identical vitamin D doses are compared. We therefore aimed to investigate the importance of body weight for the dose-response relation in circulating 25OHD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled vitamin D supplementation trials in all age groups ≥10 years to clarify the influence of body weight and other parameters on incremental circulating 25OHD levels (difference between baseline and in-study values) in vitamin D-deficient and non-deficient individuals. RESULTS: We included 144 cohorts from 94 independent studies, published from 1990 to November 2012, in our systematic review. There was a logarithmic association between vitamin D dose per kg body weight per day and increment in circulating 25OHD. In multivariable regression analysis, vitamin D dose per kg body weight per day could explain 34.5% of variation in circulating 25OHD. Additional significant predictors were type of supplement (vitamin D2 or vitamin D3), age, concomitant intake of calcium supplements and baseline 25OHD, explaining 9.8, 3.7, 2.4 and 1.9%, respectively, of the variation in circulating 25OHD. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrates that body weight is an important predictor of variation in circulating 25OHD in cohorts on vitamin D supplements. Our model provides an estimate of the daily vitamin D dose that is necessary for achieving adequate circulating 25OHD levels in vitamin D-insufficient or vitamin D-deficient individuals/cohorts with different body weights and ages.
Authors: Charles B Stephensen; Melissa Zerofsky; Dustin J Burnett; Yan-Ping Lin; Bruce D Hammock; Laura M Hall; Tara McHugh Journal: J Nutr Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Gaele Ducher; Shona L Bass; Geraldine A Naughton; Prisca Eser; Richard D Telford; Robin M Daly Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2009-08-26 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Jochen Börgermann; Kanstantsin Lazouski; Joachim Kuhn; Jens Dreier; Michael Schmidt; Thomas Gilis-Januszewski; Cornelius Knabbe; Jan F Gummert; Armin Zittermann Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: R Rizzoli; S Boonen; M-L Brandi; O Bruyère; C Cooper; J A Kanis; J-M Kaufman; J D Ringe; G Weryha; J-Y Reginster Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Pang Yao; Ling Lu; Yao Hu; Gang Liu; Xiafei Chen; Liang Sun; Xingwang Ye; He Zheng; Yan Chen; Frank B Hu; Huaixing Li; Xu Lin Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: L C Pop; D Sukumar; S H Schneider; Y Schlussel; T Stahl; C Gordon; X Wang; T V Papathomas; S A Shapses Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Leigh A Peterson; Lawrence J Cheskin; Michael A Schweitzer; Thomas H Magnuson; Kimberley E Steele Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: George Griffin; Martin Hewison; Julian Hopkin; Rose Anne Kenny; Richard Quinton; Jonathan Rhodes; Sreedhar Subramanian; David Thickett Journal: Clin Med (Lond) Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 2.659
Authors: Armin Zittermann; Jana B Ernst; Sylvana Prokop; Uwe Fuchs; Jens Dreier; Joachim Kuhn; Cornelius Knabbe; Heiner K Berthold; Ioanna Gouni-Berthold; Jan F Gummert; Jochen Börgermann; Stefan Pilz Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 5.614