Vitamin D3 and calcidiol are not equipotent

Investigating the effects of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 on clinical outcomes in multiple sclerosis patients: A randomized, double-blind clinical trial- a pilot study

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of this clinical trial was to assess whether administrating oral calcifediol (25(OH)D3) could enhance the clinical outcomes of patients diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

METHODS

This clinical trial was designed as a randomized, double-blind, two-arm study, with 25 participants receiving daily 50 μg of calcifediol and 25 people receiving daily 50 μg of cholecalciferol. The primary outcomes were serum levels of 25(OH)D3, number of relapses, changes in Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the 25-foot walk, and cognitive function.

RESULTS

At the end of the trial, delta serum concentrations of 25(OH)D3 were 85.32±40.94 ng/ml in the calcifediol group compared to 13.72±11.56 ng/ml in the cholecalciferol group; 84 % of the calcifediol group and none of the cholecalciferol group had circulating 25(OH)D3 concentrations exceeding 70 ng/ml. While both groups showed an overall trend towards improved cognitive function at the end of the study, the calcifediol group exhibited greater improvements in most cognitive tests. However, the trial had no significant beneficial effects on MS relapse, EDSS score, quality of life, or fatigue in either group, the calcifediol or cholecalciferol.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial shows that calcifediol is more effective in rapidly increasing 25(OH)D3 levels in MS patients compared to cholecalciferol when administrated at a similar dosage.

Efficacy and Safety of Calcifediol in Young Adults with Vitamin D Deficiency: A Phase I, Multicentre, Clinical Trial-POSCAL Study

Vitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent, and recent evidence suggests a possible association between vitamin D deficiency and various health conditions. The aim of this study was to assess monthly calcifediol treatments for vitamin D deficiency (or biweekly, if the deficiency was severe) in a young adult population with no associated comorbidities. This multicentre phase I trial started with a four month open-label treatment phase (TP) that included 101 participants (65% women with mean age 29.8 years). Eighty-two percent of the subjects (79/96) achieved 25(OH)D levels within the target range (20-60 ng/mL) by the end of the TP, and they were subsequently randomised and subjected to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, five month follow-up phase (FP). At the end of the FP, 89% of participants maintained vitamin D levels of >20 ng/mL with calcifediol, versus 49% with placebo (p < 0.001). Subjects receiving monthly calcifediol during both phases (n = 32) maintained 25(OH)D levels >20 ng/mL, whereas those on the placebo during the FP (n = 38) exhibited deficiency levels of 25(OH)D by the end of the study. No clinically relevant changes in bone metabolism parameters or toxic 25(OH)D levels were observed, and no serious adverse events were reported throughout the study. Calcifediol is a safe and effective treatment for vitamin D deficiency in the young adult population, but long-term use may be required to sustain optimal 25(OH)D levels.

Scientific and technical assistance to the evaluation of the safety of calcidiol monohydrate as a novel food

EFSA was asked by the European Commission to provide scientific assistance with respect to the EFSA adopted scientific opinion on 'Safety of calcidiol monohydrate produced by chemical synthesis as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283', including its bioavailability as a metabolite of vitamin D3 when added for nutritional purposes to food supplements. On 5 July 2023, EFSA adopted the 'Scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level for vitamin D, including the derivation of a conversion factor for calcidiol monohydrate'. This opinion concerns an updated exposure assessment for vitamin D and proposes a conversion factor for calcidiol monohydrate into vitamin D3 of 2.5 for labelling purposes. In addition, in reference to the EFSA opinion on the safety of calcidiol monohydrate, the Commission had received a letter from the pharmaceutical company EirGen Pharma Ltd requesting a revision of this opinion based on new data concerning calcidiol. Based on the information and data considered in this scientific technical report, EFSA concludes that the novel food calcidiol monohydrate proposed for use in food supplements is a bioavailable source of the biologically active metabolite of vitamin D, i.e. 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, that a conversion factor of 2.5 reflects the relative bioavailability of calcidiol vs vitamin D3 under the proposed conditions of use and use levels, and that it is safe under the proposed conditions of use and use levels, i.e. up to 10 μg/day for children ≥ 11 years old and adults, including pregnant and lactating women, and up to 5 μg/day for children 3-10 years of age.

Scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level for vitamin D, including the derivation of a conversion factor for calcidiol monohydrate

Following two requests from the European Commission (EC), the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the revision of the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for vitamin D and to propose a conversion factor (CF) for calcidiol monohydrate into vitamin D3 for labelling purposes. Vitamin D refers to ergocalciferol (vitamin D2), cholecalciferol (vitamin D3), and calcidiol monohydrate. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to assess the relative bioavailability of calcidiol monohydrate versus vitamin D3 on serum 25(OH)D concentrations, and for priority adverse health effects of excess vitamin D intake, namely persistent hypercalcaemia/hypercalciuria and endpoints related to musculoskeletal health (i.e. falls, bone fractures, bone mass/density and indices thereof). Based on the available evidence, the Panel proposes a CF for calcidiol monohydrates of 2.5 for labelling purposes. Persistent hypercalciuria, which may be an earlier sign of excess vitamin D than persistent hypercalcaemia, is selected as the critical endpoint on which to base the UL for vitamin D. A lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) of 250 μg/day is identified from two randomised controlled trials in humans, to which an uncertainty factor of 2.5 is applied to account for the absence of a no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL). A UL of 100 μg vitamin D equivalents (VDE)/day is established for adults (including pregnant and lactating women) and for adolescents aged 11-17 years, as there is no reason to believe that adolescents in the phase of rapid bone formation and growth have a lower tolerance for vitamin D compared to adults. For children aged 1-10 years, a UL of 50 μg VDE/day is established by considering their smaller body size. Based on available intake data, European populations are unlikely to exceed the UL, except for regular users of food supplements containing high doses of vitamin D.

Calcifediol: Why, When, How Much?

Vitamin D deficiency is a constantly growing health problem worldwide. Adults affected with hypovitaminosis D could experience negative consequences on their musculoskeletal system and extra-skeletal health. In fact, an optimal vitamin D status is essential to ensure the correct bone, calcium, and phosphate homeostasis. To improve vitamin D status, it is important to not only increase the intake of food fortified with vitamin D, but also to administer vitamin D supplementation when required. Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is the most widely used supplement. In recent years, the administration of calcifediol (25(OH)D3), the direct precursor of the biologically active form of vitamin D3, as oral vitamin D supplementation has progressively grown. Here, we report the potential medical benefits of some peculiar biological actions of calcifediol, discussing the possible specific clinical scenarios in which the oral intake of calcifediol could be most effective to restore the correct serum levels of 25(OH)D3. In summary, the aim of this review is to provide insights into calcifediol-related rapid non-genomic responses and the possible use of this vitamin D metabolite as a supplement for the treatment of people with a higher risk of hypovitaminosis D.

Calcifediol: a review of its pharmacological characteristics and clinical use in correcting vitamin D deficiency

BACKGROUND

In addition to the role of vitamin D in bone mineralization, calcium and phosphate homeostasis, and skeletal health, evidence suggests an association between vitamin D deficiency and a wide range of chronic conditions. This is of clinical concern given the substantial global prevalence of vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D deficiency has traditionally been treated with vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D₂ (ergocalciferol). Calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D₃) has recently become available more widely.

METHODS

By means of targeted literature searches of PubMed, this narrative review overviews the physiological functions and metabolic pathways of vitamin D, examines the differences between calcifediol and vitamin D₃, and highlights clinical trials conducted with calcifediol in patients with bone disease or other conditions.

RESULTS

For supplemental use in the healthy population, calcifediol can be used at doses of up to 10 µg per day for children ≥ 11 years and adults and up to 5 µg/day in children 3-10 years. For therapeutic use of calcifediol under medical supervision, the dose, frequency and duration of treatment is determined according to serum 25(OH)D concentrations, condition, type of patient and comorbidities. Calcifediol differs pharmacokinetically from vitamin D₃ in several ways. It is independent of hepatic 25-hydroxylation and thus is one step closer in the metabolic pathway to active vitamin D. At comparable doses to vitamin D₃, calcifediol achieves target serum 25(OH)D concentrations more rapidly and in contrast to vitamin D₃, it has a predictable and linear dose-response curve irrespective of baseline serum 25(OH)D concentrations. The intestinal absorption of calcifediol is relatively preserved in patients with fat malabsorption and it is more hydrophilic than vitamin D₃ and thus is less prone to sequestration in adipose tissue.

CONCLUSION

Calcifediol is suitable for use in all patients with vitamin D deficiency and may be preferable to vitamin D₃ for patients with obesity, liver disease, malabsorption and those who require a rapid increase in 25(OH)D concentrations.

Long-Term Treatment and Effect of Discontinuation of Calcifediol in Postmenopausal Women with Vitamin D Deficiency: A Randomized Trial

Vitamin D plays a major role in bone health and probably also in multiple extraskeletal acute and chronic diseases. Although supplementation with calcifediol, a vitamin D metabolite, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in short-term clinical trials, its effects after long-term monthly administration have been studied less extensively. This report describes the results of a 1-year, phase III-IV, double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel, multicenter superiority clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of monthly calcifediol 0.266 mg versus cholecalciferol 25,000 IU (0.625 mg) in postmenopausal women with vitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D < 20 ng/mL). A total of 303 women were randomized and 298 evaluated. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to calcifediol 0.266 mg/month for 12 months (Group A1), calcifediol 0.266 mg/month for 4 months followed by placebo for 8 months (Group A2), and cholecalciferol 25,000 IU/month (0.625 mg/month) for 12 months (Group B). By month 4, stable 25(OH)D levels were documented with both calcifediol and cholecalciferol (intention-to-treat population): 26.8 ± 8.5 ng/mL (Group A1) and 23.1 ± 5.4 ng/mL (Group B). By month 12, 25(OH)D levels were 23.9 ± 8.0 ng/mL (Group A1) and 22.4 ± 5.5 ng/mL (Group B). When calcifediol treatment was withdrawn in Group A2, 25(OH)D levels decreased to baseline levels (28.5 ± 8.7 ng/mL at month 4 versus 14.4 ± 6.0 ng/mL at month 12). No relevant treatment-related safety issues were reported in any of the groups. The results confirm that long-term treatment with monthly calcifediol in vitamin D-deficient patients is effective and safe. The withdrawal of treatment leads to a pronounced decrease of 25(OH)D levels. Calcifediol presented a faster onset of action compared to monthly cholecalciferol. Long-term treatment produces stable and sustained 25(OH)D concentrations with no associated safety concerns. © 2023 Faes Farma SA. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Effect of vitamin D3 vs. calcifediol on VDR concentration and fiber size in skeletal muscle

INTRODUCTION

This study sought to examine the effect of vitamin D₃ (VD₃) 3200 IU/d, calcifediol (HyD) 20mcg/d, or placebo on intramyonuclear vitamin D receptor (VDR) concentration, muscle fiber cross-sectional area (FCSA), and muscle satellite cell activation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

It was conducted on a subset of the VD₃ (n = 12), HyD (n = 11), and placebo (n = 13) groups who participated in the 6-month randomized controlled HyD Osteopenia Study in postmenopausal women. Baseline and 6-month vastus lateralis muscle cross sections were probed for VDR, fiber type I and II, and PAX7 (satellite cell marker) using immunofluorescence.

RESULTS

Baseline mean ± SD age was 61 ± 4 years and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) level was 55.1 ± 22.8 nmol/L. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly by group. Six-month mean ± SD 25OHD levels were 138.7 ± 22.2 nmol/L (VD₃), 206.8 ± 68.8 nmol/L (HyD), and 82.7 ± 36.1 nmol/L (placebo), ANOVA P < 0.001. There were no significant group differences in 6-month change in VDR concentration (ANOVA P = 0.227). Mean ± SD percent 6-month changes in type I FCSA were 20.5 ± 32.7% (VD₃), - 6.6 ± 20.4% (HyD), and - 0.3 ± 14.0% (placebo, ANOVA P = 0.022). Type II FCSA or PAX7 concentration did not change significantly by group (all P > 0.358).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated no significant change in intramyonuclear VDR in response to either form of vitamin D vs. placebo. Type I FCSA significantly increased with VD₃, but not with HyD at 6 months. As type I fibers are more fatigue resistant than type II, enlargement in type I suggests potential for improved muscle endurance. Although HyD resulted in the highest 25OHD levels, no skeletal muscle benefits were noted at these high levels.

CLINICAL TRIAL

NCT02527668.

Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency with Calcifediol: Efficacy and Safety Profile and Predictability of Efficacy

Calcifediol (25-OH-vitamin D3) is the prohormone of the vitamin D endocrine system. It is used to prevent and treat vitamin D deficiency. Calcifediol, as well as cholecalciferol (vitamin D3), is efficient and safe in the general population, although calcifediol has certain advantages over cholecalciferol, such as its rapid onset of action and greater potency. This review analyzed studies comparing the efficacy and safety of both calcifediol and cholecalciferol drugs in the short and long term (>6 months). Calcifediol was found to be more efficacious, with no increase in toxicity. We also assessed the predictability of both molecules. A 25OHD increase depends on the dose and frequency of calcifediol administration. In contrast, after cholecalciferol administration, 25OHD increase depends on more factors than dose and frequency of administration, also phenotypic aspects (such as obesity and malabsorption), and genotypic factors impacts in this increase.

Calcifediol During Pregnancy Improves Maternal and Fetal Availability of Vitamin D Compared to Vitamin D3 in Rats and Modifies Fetal Metabolism

The fetus depends on the transplacental transfer of vitamin D. Calcifediol (25-OH-D3) is the vitamin D metabolite that crosses the placenta. Previously, oral 25-OH-D3 improved serum 25-OH-D3 compared to vitamin D3 in non-pregnant subjects, although no studies are available in pregnant women. We evaluated the availability of oral 25-OH-D3 compared to vitamin D3 during pregnancy, as well as, their levels in the fetus and effect on metabolism-related proteins. Twenty female rats per group were fed with 25 μg/kg of diet of vitamin D3 (1,000 UI vitamin D/kg diet) or with 25 μg/kg diet of 25-OH-D3. We analyzed 25-OH-D3 levels in maternal and fetal plasma; protein levels of vitamin D receptor (VDR), fatty acid translocase (FAT), and scavenger-receptor class B type-1 (SR-B1) in both maternal liver and placenta; and protein levels of VDR and Glutamate decarboxylase (GAD67) in fetal brain. 25-OH-D3 doubled the concentration of 25-OH-D3 in both maternal and fetal plasma compared to vitamin D3. In addition, maternal liver VDR, FAT, and SR-BI increased significantly in the 25-OH-D3 group, but no changes were found in the placenta. Interestingly, 25-OH-D3 decreased GAD67 expression in the fetal brain and it also tended to decrease VDR (P = 0.086). In conclusion, 25-OH-D3 provided better vitamin D availability for both mother and fetus when administered during pregnancy compared to vitamin D3. No adverse effects on pregnancy outcomes were observed. The effects of 25-OH-D3 on the expression of VDR and GAD67 in fetal brain require further investigation.

A Randomized, Open-Label Study to Assess Efficacy of Weekly Assumption of Cholecalciferol versus Calcifediol in Older Patients with Hypovitaminosis D

The aim of this single-center, open-label, randomized controlled study was to evaluate which formulation of vitamin D—between cholecalciferol and calcifediol—is most effective in the treatment of hypovitaminosis D in older adults. Demographic characteristics, clinical history, and comprehensive geriatric assessment were recorded at admission. Eligible patients were randomly assigned an equivalent vitamin D supplement, either with cholecalciferol or calcifediol, from the time of hospital admission to three months after discharge. Among the 140 older patients included (mean age 83 ± 6.6 years, 57.8% females), 69 received cholecalciferol and 71 received calcifediol. The mean plasma values of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25OH-vitamin D3) found at the time of enrollment were 16.8 ± 9.9 ng/mL in patients receiving cholecalciferol and 18.8 ± 13.3 ng/mL in those treated with calcifediol (p = 0.31). At the three month follow-up, the mean concentration of 25OH-vitamin D3 was significantly higher in patients treated with calcifediol than in those receiving cholecalciferol (30.7 ± 8.4 vs. 45.4 ± 9.8 ng/mL, respectively; p < 0.001). Supplementation with either cholecalciferol or calcifediol effectively results in reaching the optimal circulating values of 25OH-vitamin D3 in older patients suffering from hypovitaminosis D. However, supplementation with calcifediol led to average circulating values of 25OH-vitamin D3 that were significantly higher (over 50%) than those obtained with cholecalciferol.

Integrating supplementation in the management of patients with heart failure: an evidence-based review

INTRODUCTION

Complementary, alternative and integrative medicine includes a myriad of therapies including herbal medicines, vitamins, dietary interventions and more, that are taken alone or in adjunct to standard conventional treatment. Often the main goals are to slow progression of disease, increase effectiveness of a drug, reduce side effects and improve quality of life. The study of these therapies and their influence in heart failure is not new. However, even for an experienced clinician, a gap exists between the literature and the application of knowledge to make a confident recommendation.

AREAS COVERED

This review has a focus on specific supplements that are commonly used for individuals with HF. It discusses the mechanism of action, expected benefits, potential adverse effects, suggested doses, forms and drug interactions of these therapies. The literature search methodology included using medical subject headings terms to search in PubMed. Articles used were screened and critically appraised by the authors of this review.

EXPERT OPINION

There are promising outcomes pertaining to the use of CAM in patients with HF. Advances in large scale, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are necessary to support evidence-based decision making regarding the use of supplements in conjunction, and in comparison, to conventional therapies for heart failure.

Treatment With 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 (Calcifediol) Is Associated With a Reduction in the Blood Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Marker of Disease Severity in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Pilot Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blinded Clinical Trial

Objective

The goal of this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial was to investigate the therapeutic efficacy of oral 25-hydroxyvitamin D₃ (25(OH)D₃) in improving vitamin D status in vitamin D–deficient/vitamin D–insufficient patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus.

Methods

This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Participants were recruited from 3 hospitals that are affiliated to [Institution Blinded for Review] and [Institution Blinded for Review].

Results

A total 106 hospitalized patients who had a circulating 25(OH)D₃ concentration of <30 ng/mL were enrolled in this study. Within 30 and 60 days, 76.4% (26 of 34) and 100% (24 of 24) of the patients who received 25(OH)D₃ had a sufficient circulating 25(OH)D₃ concentration, whereas ≤12.5% of the patients in the placebo group had a sufficient circulating 25(OH)D₃ concentration during the 2-month follow-up.

We observed an overall lower trend for hospitalization, intensive care unit duration, need for ventilator assistance, and mortality in the 25(OH)D₃ group compared with that in the placebo group, but differences were not statistically significant. Treatment with oral 25(OH)D₃ was associated with a significant increase in the lymphocyte percentage and decrease in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in the patients. The lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was significantly associated with reduced intensive care unit admission days and mortality.

Conclusion

Our analysis indicated that oral 25(OH)D₃ was able to correct vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency in patients with COVID-19 that resulted in improved immune function by increasing blood lymphocyte percentage. Randomized controlled trials with a larger sample size and higher dose of 25(OH)D₃ may be needed to confirm the potential effect of 25(OH)D₃ on reducing clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Calcifediol is superior to cholecalciferol in improving vitamin D status in postmenopausal women: a randomized trial

Vitamin D has shown to play a role in multiple diseases due to its skeletal and extraskeletal actions. Furthermore, vitamin D deficiency has become a worldwide health issue. Few supplementation guidelines mention calcifediol treatment, despite being the direct precursor of calcitriol and the biomarker of vitamin D status. This 1-year, phase III-IV, double-blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial assessed the efficacy and safety of calcifediol 0.266 mg soft capsules in vitamin D-deficient postmenopausal women, compared to cholecalciferol. Results reported here are from a prespecified interim analysis, for the evaluation of the study's primary endpoint: the percentage of patients with serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels above 30 ng/ml after 4 months. A total of 303 patients were enrolled, of whom 298 were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Patients with baseline levels of serum 25(OH)D <20 ng/ml were randomized 1:1:1 to calcifediol 0.266 mg/month for 12 months, calcifediol 0.266 mg/month for 4 months followed by placebo for 8 months, and cholecalciferol 25,000 IU/month for 12 months. At month 4, 35.0% of postmenopausal women treated with calcifediol and 8.2% of those treated with cholecalciferol reached serum 25(OH)D levels above 30 ng/ml (p < 0.0001). The most remarkable difference between both drugs in terms of mean change in serum 25(OH)D levels was observed after the first month of treatment (mean ± standard deviation change = 9.7 ± 6.7 and 5.1 ± 3.5 ng/ml in patients treated with calcifediol and cholecalciferol, respectively). No relevant treatment-related safety issues were reported in any of the groups studied. These results thus confirm that calcifediol is effective, faster, and more potent than cholecalciferol in raising serum 25(OH)D levels and is a valuable option for the treatment of vitamin D deficiency. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

A pilot-randomized, double-blind crossover trial to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of orally administered 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 and vitamin D3 in healthy adults with differing BMI and in adults with intestinal malabsorption

BACKGROUND

Obese and malabsorptive patients have difficulty increasing serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] after taking vitamin D supplementation. Since 25(OH)D is more hydrophilic than vitamin D, we hypothesized that oral 25(OH)D supplementation is more effective in increasing serum 25(OH)D concentrations in these patients.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the pharmacokinetics of oral 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D3] and oral vitamin D3 in healthy participants with differing BMI and malabsorptive patients.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind crossover trial was performed in 6 malabsorptive patients and 10 healthy participants who were given 900 µg of either vitamin D3 or 25(OH)D3 orally followed by a pharmacokinetic study (PKS). After ≥28 d from the first dosing, each participant returned to receive the other form of vitamin D and undergo another PKS. For each PKS, serum vitamin D3 and 25(OH)D3 were measured at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 h and days 1, 2, 3, 7, and 14. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated.

RESULTS

Data were expressed as means ± SEMs. The PKS of 900 µg vitamin D3 revealed that malabsorptive patients had 64% lower AUC than healthy participants (1177 ± 425 vs. 3258 ± 496 ng · h/mL; P < 0.05). AUCs of 900 µg 25(OH)D3 were not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.540). The 10 healthy participants were ranked by BMI and categorized into higher/lower BMI groups (5/group). The PKS of 900 µg vitamin D3 showed that the higher BMI group had 53% lower AUC than the lower BMI group (2089 ± 490 vs. 4427 ± 313 ng · h/mL; P < 0.05), whereas AUCs of 900 µg 25(OH)D3 were not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.500).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral 25(OH)D3 may be a good choice for managing vitamin D deficiency in malabsorption and obesity. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as (NCT03401541.

Pharmacokinetic profile and effect on bone markers and muscle strength of two daily dosage regimens of calcifediol in osteopenic/osteoporotic postmenopausal women

Background

At present, although cholecalciferol represents the form of vitamin D of choice for the treatment of vitamin D deficiency, there is a growing interest in calcifediol.

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of two different daily doses of calcifediol.

Methods

Fifty osteopenic/osteoporotic women with serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) between 10 and 20 ng/ml were randomized to a 6-month treatment with oral calcifediol 20 µg/day (n = 25) or oral calcifediol 30 µg/day (n = 25). In all, we measured the time course of the levels of 25OHD and other biochemical parameters. Moreover, we evaluated handgrip strength and serum levels of myostatin.

Results

The peak increase in 25OHD levels was reached after 90 days of treatment in group 1 (59.3 ng/ml) and after only 60 days in group 2 (72.3 ng/ml); thereafter in both groups, the levels of 25OHD showed a tendency towards stabilization. After 30 days, all the patients treated with 30 µg/day had values of 25OHD > 30 ng/ml. Handgrip strength showed a modest but progressive increase which reached the statistical significance in the 30 µg/day group. This latter group also presented a modest and non-significant decrease in serum levels of myostatin.

Conclusions

Calcifediol is able to rapidly normalize the vitamin D deficiency, and the 30 µg daily dosage could be suggested in those patients who need to rapidly reach optimal 25OHD levels. Moreover, the 6-month treatment with calcifediol at a dose of 30 µg results in a modest but significant increase in upper limb strength.

The future is bright: Biofortification of common foods can improve vitamin D status

Vitamin D deficiency is a global concern, linked to suboptimal musculoskeletal health and immune function, with status inadequacies owing to variations in UV dependent cutaneous synthesis and limited natural dietary sources. Endogenous biofortification, alongside traditional fortification and supplement usage is urgently needed to address this deficit. Evidence reviewed in the current article clearly demonstrates that feed modification and UV radiation, either independently or used in combination, effectively increases vitamin D content of primary produce or ingredients, albeit in the limited range of food vehicles tested to date (beef/pork/chicken/eggs/fish/bread/mushrooms). Fewer human trials have confirmed that consumption of these biofortified foods can increase circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations (n = 10), which is of particular importance to avoid vitamin D status declining to nadir during wintertime. Meat is an unexplored yet plausible food vehicle for vitamin D biofortification, owing, at least in part, to its ubiquitous consumption pattern. Consumption of PUFA-enriched meat in human trials demonstrates efficacy (n = 4), lighting the way for exploration of vitamin D-biofortified meats to enhance consumer vitamin D status. Response to vitamin D-biofortified foods varies by food matrix, with vitamin D₃-enriched animal-based foods observing the greatest effect in maintaining or elevating 25(OH)D concentrations. Generally, the efficacy of biofortification appears to vary dependent upon vitamer selected for animal feed supplementation (vitamin D₂ or D₃, or 25(OH)D), baseline participant status and the bioaccessibility from the food matrix. Further research in the form of robust human clinical trials are required to explore the contribution of biofortified foods to vitamin D status.

Safety of calcidiol monohydrate produced by chemical synthesis as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the safety of calcidiol monohydrate as a novel food (NF) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, including its bioavailability as a metabolite of vitamin D3 when added for nutritional purposes to food supplements. The NF is produced chemically. It is proposed in food supplements up to 10 μg/day for individuals ≥ 11 years of age, including pregnant and lactating women and up to 5 μg/day in 3- to 10-year-old children. The production process, composition, specifications and stability of the NF do not raise safety concerns. Animal and human data indicate efficient absorption. The NF contains a fraction of nanoparticles, which are fat soluble and unlikely to reach systemic distribution. There are no concerns regarding genotoxicity. Human adult studies do not raise safety concerns. Combined intake estimates of calcidiol from the NF and calcidiol and vitamin D from the diet were below the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for vitamin D for subjects above 11 years of age. The achieved mean serum 25(OH)D concentration in adults supplemented with 10 μg NF per day remained below 200 nmol/L. The Panel concludes that the NF is safe under the proposed conditions of use and use levels for individuals ≥ 11 years old, including pregnant and lactating women. The applicant did not provide data on the bioavailability and safety of the NF in children. The combined intake estimation in children (3-10 years) is close to the UL for vitamin D. Therefore, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of consumption of the NF in children (3-10 years) at the proposed daily intake. The NF is a bioavailable source of the biologically active metabolite of vitamin D, i.e. 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D.

Calcifediol Treatment and Hospital Mortality Due to COVID-19: A Cohort Study

Context. Calcifediol has been proposed as a potential treatment for COVID-19 patients. Objective: To compare the administration or not of oral calcifediol on mortality risk of patients hospitalized because of COVID-19. Design: Retrospective, multicenter, open, non-randomized cohort study. Settings: Hospitalized care. Patients: Patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between 5 February and 5 May 2020 in five hospitals in the South of Spain. Intervention: Patients received calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D₃) treatment (0.266 mg/capsule, 2 capsules on entry and then one capsule on day 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28) or not. Main Outcome Measure: In-hospital mortality during the first 30 days after admission. Results: A total of 537 patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 (317 males (59%), median age, 70 years), and 79 (14.7%) received calcifediol treatment. Overall, in-hospital mortality during the first 30 days was 17.5%. The OR of death for patients receiving calcifediol (mortality rate of 5%) was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.61) compared to patients not receiving such treatment (mortality rate of 20%; p < 0.01). Patients who received calcifediol after admission were more likely than those not receiving treatment to have comorbidity and a lower rate of CURB-65 score for pneumonia severity ≥ 3 (one point for each of confusion, urea > 7 mmol/L, respiratory rate ≥ 30/min, systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤ 60 mm Hg, and age ≥ 65 years), acute respiratory distress syndrome (moderate or severe), c-reactive protein, chronic kidney disease, and blood urea nitrogen. In a multivariable logistic regression model, adjusting for confounders, there were significant differences in mortality for patients receiving calcifediol compared with patients not receiving it (OR = 0.16 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.80). Conclusion: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, treatment with calcifediol, compared with those not receiving calcifediol, was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality during the first 30 days. The observational design and sample size may limit the interpretation of these findings.

Vitamin D Sources, Metabolism, and Deficiency: Available Compounds and Guidelines for Its Treatment

Studies on vitamin/hormone D deficiency have received a vast amount of attention in recent years, particularly concerning recommendations, guidelines, and treatments. Moreover, vitamin D’s role as a hormone has been confirmed in various enzymatic, metabolic, physiological, and pathophysiological processes related to many organs and systems in the human body. This growing interest is mostly due to the evidence that modest-to-severe vitamin D deficiency is widely prevalent around the world. There is broad agreement that optimal vitamin D status is necessary for bones, muscles, and one’s general health, as well as for the efficacy of antiresorptive and anabolic bone-forming treatments. Food supplementation with vitamin D, or the use of vitamin D supplements, are current strategies to improve vitamin D levels and treat deficiency. This article reviews consolidated and emerging concepts about vitamin D/hormone D metabolism, food sources, deficiency, as well as the different vitamin D supplements available, and current recommendations on the proper use of these compounds.

Effects of Different Vitamin D Supplementation Schemes in Post-Menopausal Women: A Monocentric Open-Label Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

The improvement of muscular strength is a well-known extra-skeletal effect of Vitamin D. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the calcifediol supplementation compared to various cholecalciferol administration schedules in increasing 25(OH)D serum levels and improving muscular function.

METHODS

107 post-menopausal women with hypovitaminosis D were assigned to receive Vitamin D supplementation according to four different regimens: colecalciferol single, monthly, or weekly oral dose and calcifediol weekly oral dose. Serum levels of 25(OH)D and muscular function of lower limbs (Sit-to-Stand test and Timed-Up-and-Go test) were evaluated at baseline and during 6 months follow-up.

RESULTS

Calcifediol and weekly cholecalciferol induced a greater and faster increase of serum 25(OH)D, compared to monthly or single-dose cholecalciferol administration. The 25(OH)D increase was associated with an improvement of muscle function of lower limbs. The larger increase of serum 25(OH)D observed with calcifediol and with weekly cholecalciferol was associated with a concomitant greater improvement of muscle strength.

CONCLUSIONS

Supplementation with calcifediol is more effective and faster compared to cholecalciferol in increasing 25(OH)D serum levels and is associated with a greater improvement of muscular function, thus representing a therapeutic alternative for treatment of hypovitaminosis D.

Cholecalciferol or Calcifediol in the Management of Vitamin D Deficiency

Vitamin D deficiency is a global health problem due to its high prevalence and its negative consequences on musculoskeletal and extra-skeletal health. In our comparative review of the two exogenous vitamin D supplementation options most used in our care setting, we found that cholecalciferol has more scientific evidence with positive results than calcifediol in musculoskeletal diseases and that it is the form of vitamin D of choice in the most accepted and internationally recognized clinical guidelines on the management of osteoporosis. Cholecalciferol, unlike calcifediol, guarantees an exact dosage in IU (International Units) of vitamin D and has pharmacokinetic properties that allow either daily or even weekly, fortnightly, or monthly administration in its equivalent doses, which can facilitate adherence to treatment. Regardless of the pattern of administration, cholecalciferol may be more likely to achieve serum levels of 25(OH)D (25-hydroxy-vitamin D) of 30-50 ng/mL, an interval considered optimal for maximum benefit at the lowest risk. In summary, the form of vitamin D of choice for exogenous supplementation should be cholecalciferol, with calcifediol reserved for patients with liver failure or severe intestinal malabsorption syndromes.

Supplemental 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol Is More Effective than Cholecalciferol in Raising Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Concentrations in Older Adults

BACKGROUND

There are few studies directly comparing the pharmacokinetics of 25-hydroxycholecalciferol [25(OH)D3] to cholecalciferol (D3).

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to compare the effectiveness of D3 and 25(OH)D3 in raising 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] serum concentrations and achieving steady state.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, active comparator trial of 91 participants (53 females, 38 males), aged 63.3 ± 7.9 y. 25(OH)D3 (10, 15, and 20 µg) and D3 (20 µg) were dosed daily for 6 mo followed by 6 mo of washout. Frequent measurements of serum 25(OH)D were performed. Pharmacokinetic parameters were fitted for each individual and the treatment average was modeled with linear regression using the individual baseline level, sex, and gender as covariates.

RESULTS

Mean baseline 25(OH)D was similar in all groups (47.1-49.5 nmol/L). Increases in 25(OH)D to steady state were higher in the 25(OH)D3 groups than in the D3 group [least squares (LS) means (95% CI): 50.1 (43.3-58.0), 72.5 (64.3-81.7), 97.4 (86.6-109.6) nmol/L in 10, 15, and 20 µg/d and 38.7 (33.1-45.2) nmol/L in the D3 group; P = 0.0173, P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001]. The rate to reach steady state was similar in all groups, but the time to reach 25(OH)D concentrations of 75 nmol/L was faster in the higher-dosed 25(OH)D3 groups than in the D3 group (7 and 10 d compared with 40 d, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001 for 15 and 20 µg/d). The rate of elimination was 59-109% higher in the 25(OH)D3 groups than in the D3 group. The area under the curve (AUC)/µg dose demonstrated that 25(OH)D3 was 3 times as effective as D3 at raising 25(OH)D concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

25(OH)D3 is ∼3 times as effective as D3 at raising 25(OH)D concentrations. Once supplementation is discontinued, the elimination rate of 25(OH)D3 is faster than D3. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02333682.

Effects of Weekly Supplementation of Cholecalciferol and Calcifediol Among the Oldest-Old People: Findings From a Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial

Vitamin D inadequacy is pervasive in the oldest-old. Many vitamin D metabolites are available for supplementation, their effects on the recovery of adequate serum levels remain unknown. We investigate the effects of supplementation with cholecalciferol (D3) and calcifediol (25D3) on serum levels of 25(OH)D, 1-25(OH)D, bone and inflammatory markers, ultimately identifying clinical predictors of successful treatment. Sixty-seven oldest-old individuals were randomized to weekly administration of 150 mcg of 25D3 or D3, from hospital admission to 7 months after discharge. Supplementation of 25D3 and D3 were associated with increasing serum levels of 25(OH)D (p < 0.001) and 1-25(OH)D (p = 0.01). Participants on 25D3 experienced a steeper rise than those on D3 (group*time interaction p = 0.01), after adjustment for intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) levels the differences disappeared (intervention*iPTH interaction p = 0.04). Vitamin D supplementation was associated with a decreasing trend of iPTH and C-reactive protein (CRP) (p < 0.001). Polypharmacy and low handgrip strength were predictors of failure of intervention, independent of vitamin D metabolites. In conclusion, D3 and 25D3 supplementation significantly increase vitamin D serum levels in the oldest-old individuals, with a tendency of 25D3 to show a faster recovery of acceptable iPTH levels than D3. Polypharmacy and low muscle strength weaken the recovery of adequate vitamin D serum levels.

Challenges to Quantify Total Vitamin Activity: How to Combine the Contribution of Diverse Vitamers?

This state-of-the-art review aims to highlight the challenges in quantifying vitamin activity in foods that contain several vitamers of a group, using as examples the fat-soluble vitamins A and D as well as the water-soluble folate. The absorption, metabolism, and physiology of these examples are described along with the current analytical methodology, with an emphasis on approaches to standardization. Moreover, the major food sources for the vitamins are numerated. The article focuses particularly on outlining the so-called SLAMENGHI factors influencing a vitamer's' ability to act as a vitamin, that is, molecular species, linkage, amount, matrix, effectors of absorption, nutrition status, genetics, host-related factors, and the interaction of these. After summarizing the current approaches to estimating the total content of each vitamin group, the review concludes by outlining the research gaps and future perspectives in vitamin analysis. There are no standardized methods for the quantification of the vitamers of vitamin A, vitamin D, and folate in foods. For folate and β-carotene, a difference in vitamer activity between foods and supplements has been confirmed, whereas no difference has been observed for vitamin D. For differences in vitamer activity between provitamin A carotenoids and retinol, and between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and vitamin D, international consensus is lacking. The challenges facing each of the specific vitamin communities are the gaps in knowledge about bioaccessibility and bioavailability for each of the various vitamers. The differences between the vitamins make it difficult to formulate a common strategy for assessing the quantitative differences between the vitamers. In the future, optimized stationary digestive models and the more advanced dynamic digestive models combined with in vitro models for bioavailability could more closely resemble in vivo results. New knowledge will enable us to transfer nutrient recommendations into improved dietary advice to increase public health throughout the human life cycle.

Hypovitaminosis D: Is It Time to Consider the Use of Calcifediol?

Hypovitaminosis D is becoming a notable health problem worldwide. A consensus exists among several different medical societies as to the need for adequate levels of vitamin D for bone and general health. The correct method by which to restore normal vitamin D levels is still a matter of debate. Although cholecalciferol remains the most commonly distributed form of vitamin D supplementation worldwide, several drugs with vitamin D activity are available for clinical use, and making the correct selection for the individual patient may be challenging. In this narrative review, we aim to contribute to the current knowledge base on the possible and appropriate use of calcifediol-the 25-alpha-hydroxylated metabolite-in relation to its chemical characteristics, its biological properties, and its pathophysiological aspects. Furthermore, we examine the trials that have aimed to evaluate the effect of calcifediol on the restoration of normal vitamin D levels. Calcifediol is more soluble than cholecalciferol in organic solvents, due to its high polarity. Good intestinal absorption and high affinity for the vitamin-D-binding protein positively affect the bioavailability of calcifediol compared with cholecalciferol. In particular, orally administered calcifediol shows a much shorter half-life than oral cholecalciferol. Most findings suggest that oral calcifediol is about three- to five-fold more powerful than oral cholecalciferol, and that it has a higher rate of intestinal absorption. Accordingly, calcifediol can be particularly useful in treating diseases associated with decreased intestinal absorption, as well as obesity (given its lower trapping in the adipose tissue) and potentially neurological diseases treated with drugs that interfere with the hepatic cytochrome P-450 enzyme system, resulting in decreased synthesis of calcifediol. Up to now, there has not been enough clinical evidence for its use in the context of osteoporosis treatment.

Effect of calcifediol treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous revascularization

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Vitamin D deficiency has been consistently linked with cardiovascular diseases. However, results of intervention studies are contradictory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of treatment with calcifediol (25(OH)D₃) on the cardiovascular system of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective study assessing≥60-year-old patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, coronary artery disease and percutaneous revascularisation. We randomly assigned 41 patients (70.6±6.3 years) into 2 groups: Standard treatment+25(OH)D₃ supplementation or standard treatment alone. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were evaluated at the conclusion of the 3-month follow-up period. 25(OH)D levels were analysed with regard to other relevant analytical variables and coronary disease extent.

RESULTS

Basal levels of 25(OH)D≤50nmol/L were associated with multivessel coronary artery disease (RR: 2.6 [CI 95%:1.1-7.1], P=.027) and 25(OH)D≤50nmol/L+parathormone ≥65pg/mL levels correlated with increased risk for MACE (RR: 4 [CI 95%: 1.1-21.8], P=.04]. One MACE was detected in the supplemented group versus five in the control group (P=.66). Among patients with 25(OH)D levels≤50nmol/L at the end of the study, 28.6% had MACE versus 0% among patients with 25(OH)D>50nmol/L (RR: 1,4; P=.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Vitamin D deficiency plus secondary hyperparathyroidism may be an effective predictor of MACE. A trend throughout the follow up period towards a reduction in MACE among patients supplemented with 25(OH)D₃ was detected. 25(OH)D levels≤50nmol/L at the end of the intervention period were significantly associated with an increased number of MACE, hence, 25(OH)D level normalisation could improve cardiovascular health in addition to bone health.

Is calcifediol better than cholecalciferol for vitamin D supplementation?

Modest and even severe vitamin D deficiency is widely prevalent around the world. There is consensus that a good vitamin D status is necessary for bone and general health. Similarly, a better vitamin D status is essential for optimal efficacy of antiresorptive treatments. Supplementation of food with vitamin D or using vitamin D supplements is the most widely used strategy to improve the vitamin status. Cholecalciferol (vitamin D₃) and ergocalciferol (vitamin D₂) are the most widely used compounds and the relative use of both products depends on historical or practical reasons. Oral intake of calcifediol (25OHD₃) rather than vitamin D itself should also be considered for oral supplementation. We reviewed all publications dealing with a comparison of oral cholecalciferol with oral calcifediol as to define the relative efficacy of both compounds for improving the vitamin D status. First, oral calcifediol results in a more rapid increase in serum 25OHD compared to oral cholecalciferol. Second, oral calcifediol is more potent than cholecalciferol, so that lower dosages are needed. Based on the results of nine RCTs comparing physiologic doses of oral cholecalciferol with oral calcifediol, calcifediol was 3.2-fold more potent than oral cholecalciferol. Indeed, when using dosages ≤ 25 μg/day, serum 25OHD increased by 1.5 ± 0.9 nmol/l for each 1 μg cholecalciferol, whereas this was 4.8 ± 1.2 nmol/l for oral calcifediol_. Third, oral calcifediol has a higher rate of intestinal absorption and this may have important advantages in case of decreased intestinal absorption capacity due to a variety of diseases. A potential additional advantage of oral calcifediol is a linear dose-response curve, irrespective of baseline serum 25OHD, whereas the rise in serum 25OHD is lower after oral cholecalciferol, when baseline serum 25OHD is higher. Finally, intermittent intake of calcifediol results in fairly stable serum 25OHD compared with greater fluctuations after intermittent oral cholecalciferol.

25(OH)D3-enriched or fortified foods are more efficient at tackling inadequate vitamin D status than vitamin D3

The ability to synthesise sufficient vitamin D through sunlight in human subjects can be limited. Thus, diet has become an important contributor to vitamin D intake and status; however, there are only a few foods (e.g. egg yolk, oily fish) naturally rich in vitamin D. Therefore, vitamin D-enriched foods via supplementing the animals' diet with vitamin D or vitamin D fortification of foods have been proposed as strategies to increase vitamin D intake. Evidence that cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) and calcifediol (25(OH)D3) content of eggs, fish and milk increased in response to vitamin D3 supplementation of hens, fish or cows' diets was identified when vitamin D-enrichment studies were reviewed. However, evidence from supplementation studies with hens showed only dietary 25(OH)D3, not vitamin D3 supplementation, resulted in a pronounced increase of 25(OH)D3 in the eggs. Furthermore, evidence from randomised controlled trials indicated that a 25(OH)D3 oral supplement could be absorbed faster and more efficiently raise serum 25(OH)D concentration compared with vitamin D3 supplementation. Moreover, evidence showed the relative effectiveness of increasing vitamin D status using 25(OH)D3 varied between 3·13 and 7·14 times that of vitamin D3, probably due to the different characteristics of the investigated subjects or study design. Therefore, vitamin D-enrichment or fortified foods using 25(OH)D3 would appear to have advantages over vitamin D3. Further well-controlled studies are needed to assess the effects of 25(OH)D3 enriched or fortified foods in the general population and clinical patients.

A 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol-Fortified Dairy Drink Is More Effective at Raising a Marker of Postprandial Vitamin D Status than Cholecalciferol in Men with Suboptimal Vitamin D Status

Background: One strategy for improving population vitamin D status is consumption of fortified foods. However, the effects of dairy products fortified with different vitamin D isoforms on postprandial vitamin D status and metabolic outcomes have not been addressed.Objective: We investigated whether consumption of dairy drinks fortified with either 25-hydroxycholecalciferol [25(OH)D₃] or cholecalciferol (vitamin D₃) had differential effects on 24-h circulating plasma 25(OH)D₃ concentration (a marker of vitamin D status) and cardiometabolic risk markers.Methods: A randomized, controlled, 3-way crossover, double-blind, postprandial study was conducted in 17 men with suboptimal vitamin D status [mean ± SEM age: 49 ± 3 y; body mass index (in kg/m²): 26.4 ± 0.6; and plasma 25(OH)D₃ concentration: 31.7 ± 3.4 nmol/L]. They were randomly assigned to consume 3 different test meals (4.54 MJ, 51 g fat, 125 g carbohydrate, and 23 g protein), which contained either a nonfortified dairy drink (control), 20 μg 25(OH)D₃-fortified (+HyD₃) dairy drink, or 20 μg vitamin D₃-fortified (+D₃) dairy drink with toasted bread and jam on different occasions, separated by a 2-wk washout. Plasma 25(OH)D₃ concentrations and cardiometabolic risk markers, including vascular stiffness, serum lipids, and inflammatory markers, were measured frequently within 8 h postprandially and 24 h after the dairy drink was consumed.Results: Plasma 25(OH)D₃ concentrations (the primary outcome) were significantly higher after the +HyD₃ dairy drink was consumed compared with +D₃ and control (P = 0.019), which was reflected in the 1.5-fold and 1.8-fold greater incremental area under the curve for the 0-8 h response, respectively. The change in plasma 25(OH)D₃ concentrations from baseline to 24 h for the +HyD₃ dairy drink was also 0.9-fold higher than the +D₃ dairy drink and 4.4-fold higher than the control (P < 0.0001), which were not significantly different from each other.Conclusion: The dairy drink fortified with 25(OH)D₃ was more effective at raising plasma 25(OH)D₃ concentrations postprandially than was the dairy drink fortified with vitamin D₃ in men with suboptimal vitamin D status. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02535910.

Recommended vitamin D levels in the general population

OBJECTIVE

To provide recommendations based on evidence on the management of vitaminD deficiency in the general population.

PARTICIPANTS

Members of the Bone Metabolism Working Group of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology.

METHODS

Recommendations were formulated using the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to describe both the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. A systematic search was made in MEDLINE (Pubmed) using the term VitaminD and the name of each issue. Papers in English and Spanish with publication date before 17 March 2016 were included. Recommendations were jointly discussed by the Working Group.

CONCLUSIONS

This document summarizes the data about vitaminD deficiency in terms of prevalence, etiology, screening indications, adequate levels and effects of supplementation on bone and non-skeletal health outcomes.