| Literature DB >> 29484099 |
Samantha M Kimball1, Jasmine Lee2, Reinhold Vieth3.
Abstract
Vitamin D3 is produced in the skin in response to UVB irradiation, from either sun exposure or UVB sunbeds. The objective of the current study was to characterize serum 25(OH)D response to regular sunbed use from several lamp outputs following their respective time exposure recommendations. There were three groups that tanned over 12 weeks during the winter months in dedicated sunbeds based on lamp outputs (100 W and 160 W low pressure fluorescent and 700 W high pressure filtered metal halide lamps) and a control group provided serum 25(OH)D samples at baseline and end-of-study. Tanning session lengths were calculated based on Health Canada guidelines to stay below the erythema levels. Mean 25(OH)D were increased by an average of 42 nmol/L in the sunbeds that used 100 W and 160 W fluorescents. Change in 25(OH)D was dependent on baseline 25(OH)D levels and sunbed (p = 0.003) and age (p = 0.03), but was not affected by gender, BMI, Fitzpatrick type or cumulative length of tanning sessions. There was no significant increase in 25(OH)D levels in participants using the 700 W filtered metal halide lamp sunbed or in the control participants. Skin pigmentation, [Formula: see text], was markedly increased in all tanners and skin lightness, L*, significantly decreased at 12 weeks. Both L* and [Formula: see text] were significantly correlated with 25(OH)D concentrations for the sunbeds with fluorescent lamps emitting UVB (100 W and 160W). Participants following standardized exposure schedules meeting Health Canada regulations in sunbeds irradiating adequate UVB showed continuous increases of 25(OH)D to physiological levels even after producing a tan in a controlled manner. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT02334592.Entities:
Keywords: Sunbed; phototherapy; tanning; ultraviolet A; ultraviolet B; ultraviolet radiation; vitamin D
Year: 2017 PMID: 29484099 PMCID: PMC5821157 DOI: 10.1080/19381980.2017.1375635
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dermatoendocrinol ISSN: 1938-1972
Baseline Demographics of Study Participants.
| Group (Sunbed) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (LP 100W) | 2 (LP 160W) | 3 (HP) | 4 (Controls) | |
| N | 20 | 20 | 19 | 26 |
| Female:Male | 16:4 | 16:3 | 11:3 | 16:10 |
| Age (yr) | 37.1 ± 13a | 37.0 ± 10a | 30.5 ± 15b | 39.5 ± 14a |
| BMI | 24.7 ± 3.7 | 23.9 ± 3.3 | 24.4 ± 3.3 | NA |
| Fitzpatrick Skin type: | ||||
| II | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA |
| III | 12 | 15 | 13 | NA |
| IV | 7 | 3 | 5 | NA |
| Baseline 25(OH)D (nmol/L) | 66 ± 24a | 46 ± 14b,c | 51 ± 24 b,c | 40 ± 17 c |
| Vitamin D deficient at baseline (<50 nmol/) | 26% a | 59% b | 53% b | 67% c |
| Vitamin D insufficiency at baseline (<75 nmol/) | 79% a | 94% a | 82% a | 92% a |
Groups with different superscripts denote significant differences between groups
Mean ± SD
Comparison of 25(OH)D Concentrations between groups over time.
| Week 0 | Week 5 | Week 9 | Week 12 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | 25(OH)D (nmol/L) [n] | N with 25(OH)D >100 nmol/L | 25(OH)D (nmol/L) [n] | 25(OH)D (nmol/L) [n] | 25(OH)D (nmol/L) [n] | N with 25(OH)D >100 nmol/L | Mean Change in 25(OH)D (nmol/L) |
| 1 (LP 100W) | 66 ± 24 [19] | 2/20 | 84 ± 29 [17] | 94 ± 28 [20] | 111 ± 36 | 12/19 | 45 ± 24a [19] |
| 2 (LP 160W) | 46 ± 14 [17] | 0/17 | 61 ± 29 [12] | 79 ± 26 [18] | 84 ± 40 [12] | 4/12 | 38 ± 37a [12] |
| 3 (HP) | 51 ± 24 [17] | 2/17 | 60 ± 37 [15] | 58 ± 28 [12] | 58 ± 29 [13] | 2/13 | 7 ± 39b [13] |
| 4 (Controls) | 40 ± 17 [22] | 1/20 | — | — | 46 ± 17 [24] | 1/20 | 6 ± 20b [20] |
Denotes significant difference from baseline (p<0.05)
Groups with different superscripts denote significant differences between groups
Figure 1.Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations over 12 weeks of the study by group. Red line: Tanners in 100 W Low Pressure sunbed; Green line: Tanners in 160 W Low Pressure sunbed; Purple line: Tanners in 700 W filtered High Pressure sunbed; Blue line: Controls (no tanning).
Effect of study parameters on change in serum 25(OH)D concentration.
| Predictor | B | Standardized Coeffecient (β) | p-value | 95% Confidence Interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment Group | −28.0 | −1.29 | 0.003 | −46.04, −9.89 |
| Gender | 4.71 | 0.067 | 0.53 | −10.39, 19.80 |
| Age | −0.60 | −0.26 | 0.03 | −1.15, −0.05 |
| Fitzgerald skin type | −5.95 | −0.24 | 0.34 | −18.65, 6.45 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | −0.14 | −0.02 | 0.90 | −2.27, 1.99 |
| Cumulative time (min.) | −0.07 | −0.41 | 0.46 | −0.27, 0.13 |
Figure 2.L*, a* and ITA for the lower back and inner arm measurements. Baseline measures are represented by the solid box plots, hatched boxes from mid-study and white boxes after 12 weeks of tanning. Boxplots depict the central 50% with the median as the line and the 25th and 75th percentiles as the whiskers. Outliers are depicted as circles.
Figure 3.Flow of trial progress and analysis.
Figure 4.Lamp Spectral Outputs and CIE Vitamin D Action Spectrum a) 100 W LP fluorescent sunbed lamps, b) 160 W LP fluorescent sunbed lamps, c) High pressure (HP) 700 W filtered metal halide sunbed lamps, d) CIE Vitamin D Action Spectrum (Red Line – 100 w LP; Green Line – 160 w LP; Purple Line – 700 w HP), e) Normalized Spectral Irradiance Distribution (Blue Line – CIE 2006 Vitamin D Action Spectrum; Red Line – 100 w LP; Green Line – 160 w LP; Purple Line – 700 w HP).