Literature DB >> 28718005

Sunscreens block cutaneous vitamin D production with only a minimal effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

Florence Libon1, Justine Courtois1, Caroline Le Goff2, Pierre Lukas2, Neus Fabregat-Cabello2, Laurence Seidel3, Etienne Cavalier2, Arjen F Nikkels4.   

Abstract

A 50+ SPF sunscreen decreased significantly cutaneous vitamin D production following a single narrow-band (nb)UVB exposure, independently from the body surface area exposed. In contrast, the circulating 25(OH)D3 levels were only minimally affected. It is probable that another endogenous source of precursors is selected when skin-originated precursors are lacking.
PURPOSE: Sunscreen use, highly advocated for preventing cutaneous carcinogenesis, is potentially leading to an aggravation of vitamin D deficiency with its consequences on bone health. The effect of sunscreens on circulating vitamin D levels remains debated. This study investigated the effect of sunscreen on cutaneous vitamin D production and circulating 25(OH)D3 levels, according to different body surface areas (BSA).
METHODS: Vitamin D and 25(OH)D3 levels were measured in four groups exposed to a single nbUVB exposure on 9% (group I: head and hands), 23% (group II: head, hands and arms), 50% (group III: head, hands, arms and legs) and 96% (group IV: total body) of the body surface without and with a 50+ sun protection factor sunscreen.
RESULTS: Sunscreen use decreased by 83, 88.3, 75.7 and 92.5% the cutaneous vitamin D production in groups I to IV, respectively, but only by 13.2, 10.5, 7.7 and 10.4% the values of circulating 25(OH)D3, correspondingly.
CONCLUSIONS: Although a 50+ sunscreen decreases significantly cutaneous vitamin D production following a single nbUVB exposure, and independently from the BSA, the circulating 25(OH)D3 levels were only minimally affected. This could be explained by a switch to another endogenous source of precursors. Short-term sunscreen use probably does not affect circulating vitamin D levels and hence does not increase the risk for osteoporosis. The effect of long-term sunscreen use remains however to be determined.

Entities:  

Keywords:  25(OH)D3; Body surface; Sunscreen; UVB; Vitamin D

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28718005     DOI: 10.1007/s11657-017-0361-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Osteoporos            Impact factor:   2.617


  6 in total

1.  Is there a need of Vitamin D supplementation programme in India (VDSPI)? A letter to the Editor.

Authors:  Vivek Dixit; James Pegrum; Sahil Batra; Dinesh Dhanwal; Bhavuk Garg
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-12-21

Review 2.  Advances in Prevention and Surveillance of Cutaneous Malignancies.

Authors:  Megan H Trager; Dawn Queen; Faramarz H Samie; Richard D Carvajal; David R Bickers; Larisa J Geskin
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2019-11-09       Impact factor: 4.965

3.  Effect of sun exposure on cognitive function among elderly individuals in Northeast China.

Authors:  Qian Gao; Dechun Luan; Xue Wang; Shimeng Xin; Yang Liu; Jing Li
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 4.458

4.  Evaluation of vitamin D plasma levels after mild exposure to the sun with photoprotection.

Authors:  Luiza Alonso Pereira; Flávio Barbosa Luz; Clívia Maria Moraes de Oliveira Carneiro; Ana Lucia Rampazzo Xavier; Salim Kanaan; Hélio Amante Miot
Journal:  An Bras Dermatol       Date:  2019 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.896

Review 5.  Sunscreen photoprotection and vitamin D status.

Authors:  T Passeron; R Bouillon; V Callender; T Cestari; T L Diepgen; A C Green; J C van der Pols; B A Bernard; F Ly; F Bernerd; L Marrot; M Nielsen; M Verschoore; N G Jablonski; A R Young
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 9.302

Review 6.  Non-Musculoskeletal Benefits of Vitamin D beyond the Musculoskeletal System.

Authors:  Sicheng Zhang; Duane D Miller; Wei Li
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-02-21       Impact factor: 5.923

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.