A positive dose-response effect of vitamin D supplementation on site-specific bone mineral augmentation in adolescent girls: a double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled 1-year intervention.

UNLABELLED: The effect of vitamin D supplementation on bone mineral augmentation in 212 adolescent girls with adequate calcium intake was studied in a randomized placebo-controlled setting. Bone mineral augmentation determined by DXA increased with supplementation both in the femur and the lumbar vertebrae in a dose-responsive manner. Supplementation decreased the urinary excretion of resorption markers, but had no impact on formation markers. INTRODUCTION: Adequate vitamin D intake protects the elderly against osteoporosis, but there exists no indisputable evidence that vitamin D supplementation would benefit bone mineral augmentation. The aim of this 1-year study was to determine in a randomized double-blinded trial the effect of 5 and 10 microg vitamin D3 supplementation on bone mineral augmentation in adolescent girls with adequate dietary calcium intake. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Altogether, 228 girls (mean age, 11.4 +/- 0.4 years) participated. Their BMC was measured by DXA from the femur and lumbar spine. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [S-25(OH)D], intact PTH (S-iPTH), osteocalcin (S-OC), and urinary pyridinoline (U-Pyr) and deoxypyridinoline (U-Dpyr) were measured. Statistical analysis was performed both with the intention-to-treat (IT) and compliance-based (CB) method. RESULTS: In the CB analysis, vitamin D supplementation increased femoral BMC augmentation by 14.3% with 5 microg and by 17.2% with 10 microg compared with the placebo group (ANCOVA, p = 0.012). A dose-response effect was observed in the vertebrae (ANCOVA, p = 0.039), although only with the highest dose. The mean concentration of S-25(OH)D increased (p < 0.001) in the 5-microg group by 5.7 +/- 15.7 nM and in the 10-microg group by 12.4 +/- 13.7 nM, whereas it decreased by 6.7 +/- 11.3 nM in the placebo group. Supplementation had no effect on S-iPTH or S-OC, but it decreased U-DPyr (p = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Bone mineral augmentation in the femur was 14.3% and 17.2% higher in the groups receiving 5 and 10 microg of vitamin D, respectively, compared with the placebo group, but only 10 mug increased lumbar spine BMC augmentation significantly. Vitamin D supplementation decreased the concentration of bone resorption markers, but had no impact on bone formation markers, thus explaining increased bone mineral augmentation. However, the positive effects were noted with the CB method but not with IT.

How much vitamin D3 do the elderly need?

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D insufficiency poses a problem in many parts of the world, the elderly being an especially vulnerable group. This insufficiency results from an inadequate amount of sunshine and a low dietary intake of vitamin D. Typically, insufficiency is accompanied with high intact parathyroid hormone, (S-iPTH) concentrations. AIMS OF THE STUDY: We studied how serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D (S-25-OHD) concentrations respond to different doses of vitamin D3 supplementation. Secondly to determine the smallest efficient dose to maintain serum 25-OHD concentration above the insufficiency level. We also studied which dose would be efficient in decreasing S-iPTH concentration in these subjects. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-nine 65- to 85-year-old women participated. The women were randomly assigned into one of four groups receiving 0 (placebo), 5, 10 or 20 microg of vitamin D3 daily for 12 weeks. Fasting morning blood was drawn at the beginning of the study, and thereafter every second week. Calciotropic variables were assessed from serum and urine samples. RESULTS: The S-25-OHD concentration increased significantly (p < 0.001) in all supplemented groups [5 microg: by 10.9 (8.5) nmol/L, 10 microg: by 14.4 (6.9) nmol/L, 20 microg: by 23.7 (11.9) nmol/L], whereas it decreased in the placebo group by 8.3 (13.2) nmol/L. Equilibrium in S-25-OHD concentration was reached in all groups after 6 weeks of supplementation at 57.7 (8.9) nmol/L, 59.9 (8.9) nmol/L and 70.9 (8.9) nmol/L in the groups with increasing vitamin D supplementation. The dose-response to supplementation decreased with increasing vitamin D status at baseline, r = -0.513, p = 0.002. S-iPTH tended to decrease in those with highest dose response to supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: A clear dose response was noted in S-25-OHD to different doses of vitamin D3. The recommended dietary intake of 15 microg is adequate to maintain the S-25-OHD concentration around 40-55 nmol/L during winter, but if the optimal S-25-OHD is higher than that even higher vitamin D intakes are needed. Interestingly, subjects with lower vitamin D status at baseline responded more efficiently to supplementation than those with more adequate status.

A seasonal variation of calcitropic hormones, bone turnover and bone mineral density in early and mid-puberty girls - a cross-sectional study.

The importance of the seasonal variation of calcitropic hormones to growing skeleton has not been established. We studied whether there exists a seasonal variation in calcitropic hormones, bone mineral density (BMD) and bone remodelling markers in early puberty girls. One hundred and ninety-six girls, mean age 11.4 (sd 0.4) years, in Tanner stage 2 (early puberty) and 3 (mid-puberty) were studied during September to March. The BMD was measured from the lumbar vertebrae and the left femur by dual-energy X-ray absoptiometry. Their serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (S-25-OHD), serum intact parathyroid hormone (S-iPTH), serum osteocalcin, urinary pyridinoline and urinary deoxypyridinoline were analysed from fasting samples. The concentration of S-25-OHD and serum osteocalcin differed among months (P < 0.01), reflecting a seasonal variation. The parathyroid hormone correlated negatively with S-25-OHD (r -0.325, P < 0.001). Moreover, the BMD in the femur (P = 0.047) and to a lesser extent in vertebrae (P = 0.057) differed between months in early puberty girls but this was not seen in mid-puberty. Seasonal variation in S-25-OHD and bone remodelling markers accompanied by negative correlation between S-25-OHD and S-iPTH was seen in this cross-sectional study of adolescent girls. In addition, the seasonal rhythm contributed 7.0-7.6 % difference in the BMD of lumbar vertebrae and left femur in early puberty girls. This variation should be avoided since it could hamper peak bone mass attainment.

Bread fortified with cholecalciferol increases the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration in women as effectively as a cholecalciferol supplement.

Fortification of foods is a feasible way of preventing low vitamin D status. Bread could be a suitable vehicle for fortification because it is a common part of diets worldwide. The bioavailability of cholecalciferol from bread is not known. We studied cholecalciferol stability, the concentration of the added cholecalciferol, the dispersion of cholecalciferol in bread, and the bioavailability of cholecalciferol from fortified bread. Three batches of fortified low-fiber wheat and high-fiber rye breads were baked; from each batch, 3 samples of dough and bread were analyzed for their cholecalciferol content. In a single-blind bioavailability study, 41 healthy women, 25-45 y old, with mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration 29 nmol/L (range 12-45 nmol/L), were randomly assigned to 4 study groups. Each group consumed fortified wheat bread, fortified rye bread, regular wheat bread (control), or regular wheat bread and a cholecalciferol supplement (vitamin D control) daily for 3 wk. The daily dose of vitamin D was 10 mug in all groups except the control group. The vitamin dispersed evenly in the breads and was stable. Both fortified breads increased serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration as effectively as the cholecalciferol supplement. Supplementation or fortification did not affect serum intact parathyroid hormone concentration or urinary calcium excretion. In conclusion, fortified bread is a safe and feasible way to improve vitamin D nutrition.