UNLABELLED: Substantial variability exists in the serum 25(OH)D increase observed in response to vitamin D supplementation. Measurement of circulating cholecalciferol and 24,25(OH)₂D, as indicators of vitamin D absorption and degradation, respectively, account for approximately half of the variation in serum 25(OH)D observed following supplementation. INTRODUCTION: Vitamin D supplementation produces a variable response in serum 25(OH)D. This variability likely reflects, in part, differences in vitamin D absorption and/or degradation. Despite this variation in response, virtually all expert recommendations endorse a fixed vitamin D supplementation dose, an approach also used in most prospective studies. Such utilization of a single vitamin D dose does not assure attaining any pre-specified target 25(OH)D level, thereby compromising clinical care and prospective supplementation trials. This study begins addressing this weakness by exploring the feasibility of vitamin D metabolite measurements to predict serum 25(OH)D level attained following supplementation. METHODS: Ninety-one community-dwelling postmenopausal women with baseline 25(OH)D of 10-30 ng/mL received oral vitamin D₃, 2300 or 2500 IU, daily for 4-6 months. Serum 25(OH)D, cholecalciferol (D₃), and 24,25(OH)₂D were measured before and at the end of supplementation to determine if metabolite concentrations allow prediction of the 25(OH)D level attained. RESULTS: From baseline and follow-up data, we derived a multiple linear regression model predicting posttreatment 25(OH)D as follows: final 25(OH)D = 8.3 + (1.05*initial 25(OH)D) - (7.7*initial 24,25(OH)₂D) + (0.53*final D₃) + (4.2*final 24,25(OH)₂D). This model has an adjusted R(2) = 0.55, thus accounting for approximately half of the observed variance in the final 25(OH)D level. CONCLUSIONS: The contributions of circulating cholecalciferol and 24,25(OH)₂D to this predictive model can be considered as indicators of intestinal absorption and clearance, respectively. This paradigm requires further study; it may allow efficient "treat-to-25(OH)D-target" strategies useful in optimizing prospective studies and clinical practice.
UNLABELLED: Substantial variability exists in the serum 25(OH)D increase observed in response to vitamin D supplementation. Measurement of circulating cholecalciferol and 24,25(OH)₂D, as indicators of vitamin D absorption and degradation, respectively, account for approximately half of the variation in serum 25(OH)D observed following supplementation. INTRODUCTION:Vitamin D supplementation produces a variable response in serum 25(OH)D. This variability likely reflects, in part, differences in vitamin D absorption and/or degradation. Despite this variation in response, virtually all expert recommendations endorse a fixed vitamin D supplementation dose, an approach also used in most prospective studies. Such utilization of a single vitamin D dose does not assure attaining any pre-specified target 25(OH)D level, thereby compromising clinical care and prospective supplementation trials. This study begins addressing this weakness by exploring the feasibility of vitamin D metabolite measurements to predict serum 25(OH)D level attained following supplementation. METHODS: Ninety-one community-dwelling postmenopausal women with baseline 25(OH)D of 10-30 ng/mL received oral vitamin D₃, 2300 or 2500 IU, daily for 4-6 months. Serum 25(OH)D, cholecalciferol (D₃), and 24,25(OH)₂D were measured before and at the end of supplementation to determine if metabolite concentrations allow prediction of the 25(OH)D level attained. RESULTS: From baseline and follow-up data, we derived a multiple linear regression model predicting posttreatment 25(OH)D as follows: final 25(OH)D = 8.3 + (1.05*initial 25(OH)D) - (7.7*initial 24,25(OH)₂D) + (0.53*final D₃) + (4.2*final 24,25(OH)₂D). This model has an adjusted R(2) = 0.55, thus accounting for approximately half of the observed variance in the final 25(OH)D level. CONCLUSIONS: The contributions of circulating cholecalciferol and 24,25(OH)₂D to this predictive model can be considered as indicators of intestinal absorption and clearance, respectively. This paradigm requires further study; it may allow efficient "treat-to-25(OH)D-target" strategies useful in optimizing prospective studies and clinical practice.
Authors: N Binkley; D Gemar; J Engelke; R Gangnon; R Ramamurthy; D Krueger; M K Drezner Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 5.958
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: Anne de la Hunty; A Michael Wallace; Sigrid Gibson; Heli Viljakainen; Christel Lamberg-Allardt; Margaret Ashwell Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Rachael Z Stolzenberg-Solomon; Eric J Jacobs; Alan A Arslan; Dai Qi; Alpa V Patel; Kathy J Helzlsouer; Stephanie J Weinstein; Marjorie L McCullough; Mark P Purdue; Xiao-Ou Shu; Kirk Snyder; Jarmo Virtamo; Lynn R Wilkins; Kai Yu; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Wei Zheng; Demetrius Albanes; Qiuyin Cai; Chinonye Harvey; Richard Hayes; Sandra Clipp; Ronald L Horst; Lonn Irish; Karen Koenig; Loic Le Marchand; Laurence N Kolonel Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2010-06-18 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: John F Aloia; Manish Patel; Rhett Dimaano; Melissa Li-Ng; Sonia A Talwar; Mageda Mikhail; Simcha Pollack; James K Yeh Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 7.045
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
Authors: Nisha Bansal; Ronit Katz; Lawrence Appel; Michelle Denburg; Harold Feldman; Alan S Go; Jiang He; Andrew Hoofnagle; Tamara Isakova; Bryan Kestenbaum; John Kusek; James Lash; Mary Leonard; Mahboob Rahman; Cassianne Robinson-Cohen; Myles Wolf; Dawei Xie; Leila Zelnick; Ian H de Boer Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2019-08-30