Vitamin D oral intermittent treatment (DO IT) study, a randomized clinical trial with individual loading regimen.

Comparison of several regimens of oral vitamin D including an individually calculated loading regimen with the aim of achieving serum values > 75 nmol/l. Interventional, randomized, 3-arm study in vitamin D-deficient outpatients. Participants were allocated to supplementation of 24,000 IU vitamin D monthly over three months, using either a monthly drinking solution (Vi-De 3) or capsule (D3 VitaCaps), or an individualized loading regimen with the capsules taken weekly. For the loading regimen, the cumulative dose was calculated according to baseline 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25(OH)D) serum value and body weight. Main inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years and 25(OH)D serum concentration < 50 nmol/l. The primary outcome was 25(OH)D serum concentration one week after treatment termination. Secondary endpoints were patient's preferences and adverse events. Full datasets were obtained from 52 patients. Mean 25(OH)D values were statistically significant higher after a loading regimen compared to a monthly administration of 24,000 IU vitamin D (76.4 ± 15.8 vs 61.4 ± 10.8 nmol/l; p < 0.01). All patients treated with the loading regimen reached sufficient 25(OH)D values > 50 nmol/l. Serum 25(OH)D values > 75 nmol/l were observed more frequently in patients taking the loading regimen (47% vs 11% drinking solution vs 12% capsules). Vitamin D-related adverse effects did not occur in any treatment groups. Capsules were preferred by 88.5% of the patients. Compared to treatments with monthly intake of 24,000 IU vitamin D, the intake of an individually calculated weekly loading regimen was able to raise serum concentrations > 50 nmol/l in all cases within a safe range.

Oral intermittent vitamin D substitution: influence of pharmaceutical form and dosage frequency on medication adherence: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: To assess adherence to and preference for vitamin D substitution with different pharmaceutical forms and frequencies of administration. METHODS: A focus group of stakeholders aimed at preparing the design of an interventional, randomized, cross-over study with 2 × 2 groups obtaining monthly or weekly vitamin D products in liquid or solid form for 3 months each. Dosage corresponds to cumulated amount of recommended 800 IU daily (5.600 IU weekly / 24.000 IU monthly). Main inclusion criteria were a vitamin D serum value < 50 nmol/l and age ≥ 18 years. Primary endpoint was adherence, secondary endpoints were preferences and vitamin D serum levels. RESULTS: The focus group reached consensus for preference of a monthly administration of solid forms to adults. Full datasets were obtained from 97 participants. Adherence was significantly higher with monthly (79.5-100.0%) than weekly (66.4-98.1%) administration. Vitamin D levels increased significantly (p < 0.001) in all participants. An optimal value of > 75 nmol/l was achieved by 32% after 3 months and by 50% after 6 months. Preferred formulation was solid form (tablets, capsules) for 71% of participants, and preferred dosage frequency was monthly for 39% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Monthly oral vitamin D in solid form lead to the highest adherence, and is preferred by the participants. However, only one third of study participants achieved values in the optimal range of > 75 nmol/l cholecalciferol using weekly or monthly administration providing an average daily cholecalciferol dose of 800 IU. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03121593 | SNCTP000002251 . Registered 30. May 2017,. Prospectively registered.

Early biomarker response and patient preferences to oral and intramuscular vitamin B12 substitution in primary care: a randomised parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin B12 (VB12) deficiency can be treated with oral high-dose substitution or intramuscular (i.m.) injection of VB12. Whenever alternative routes of administration exist, patient preferences should be considered when choosing the treatment. We aimed to assess outpatient preferences towards oral or IM VB12 substitution and confirm noninferiority of early biomarker response with oral treatment, in a typical primary care population. METHODS: Prospective randomised nonblinded parallel-group trial. Patients were recruited by their general practitioner and randomly assigned to oral or IM treatment. Group O-oral was given 28 tablets of 1000 µg cyanocobalamin in a monthly punch card fitted with an electronic monitoring system. Group I-IM received four, weekly injections of 1000 µg hydroxocobalamin. Blood samples were drawn before the first administration and after 1, 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, and analysed for VB12, holotranscobalamin (HoloTc), homocysteine (Hcy) and methylmalonic acid (MMA). For group O-oral, treatment adher-ence and percentage of days with 2 dosing events were calcu-lated. Before and after 28 days of treatment, patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire about their preference for the therapy options and associated factors. RESULTS: Between November 2013 and December 2015, 37 patients (age: 49.5 ± 18.5 years; women: 60.5%) were recruited for oral (19) or IM (18) treatment. Baseline values with 95% confidence intervals for serum VB12, HoloTc, Hcy and MMA were 158 pmol/l [145-172], 49.0 pmol/l [40.4-57.5], 14.8 µmol/l [12.0-17.7] and 304 nmol/l [219-390], respective-ly, in group O-oral and 164 pmol/l [154-174], 50.1 pmol/l [38.7-61.6], 13.0 µmol/l [11.0-15.1] and 321 nmol/l [215-427], respectively, in group I-IM (not significant). After 1 month of treatment, levels of VB12 and HoloTc showed a significant increase compared with baseline (group O-oral: VB12 354 pmol/l [298-410] and HoloTc 156 pmol/l [116-196]; group I-IM: VB12 2796 pmol/l [1277-4314] and HoloTc 1269 pmol/l [103-2435]). Hcy and MMA levels showed a significant decrease compared with baseline (group O-oral: Hcy 13.8 µmol/l [10.7-16.8] and MMA 168 nmol/l [134-202]; group I-IM: Hcy 8.5 µmol/l [7.1-9.8] and MMA 156 nmol/l [121-190]). HoloTc and MMA levels were normalised in all patients after 4 weeks of treatment, whereas normalisation of VB12 and Hcy was reached by all patients in group I-IM only. Response of VB12, HoloTc and Hcy was more pronounced in group I-IM (p <0.01) and the primary hypothesis that oral VB12 treatment would be noninfe-rior to IM treatment was rejected. Average adherence to thera-py was 99.6 ± 1.1% and days with 2 dosing events reached 5.6%. Before randomisation, preference was in favour of oral treatment (45.9%, n = 17) over IM administration (21.6%, n = 8). Twelve patients (32.4%) had no preference. Nine (24.3%) patients changed their preference after treatment. Patients who obtained their preferred route of administration main-tained their preference in the case of oral treatment and changed their preference after IM treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in VB12 levels between groups were higher than expected. Therefore, noninferiority of oral treat-ment had to be rejected. However, normalisation of HoloTc and MMA was reached by all patients after a 1-month treatment period. The clinical benefit of the exaggerated biomarker re-sponse after IM treatment within a typical primary care popula-tion is questionable. Midterm biomarker effects and patient preferences should be considered when a therapeutic scheme is chosen. Initial rating in favour of either IM or oral therapy can change over time and justifies repeated re-evaluation of patient preferences. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01832129).

Antiplatelet resistance in outpatients with monitored adherence.

Antiplatelet resistance with aspirin and clopidogrel has been associated with clinical, cellular and pharmacogenetic factors; and non-adherence has been considered as a major contributor to resistance in outpatients. We aimed at assessing factors to resistance when adherence to the antiplatelet drugs and all other oral solid drugs was controlled for. In a pilot study, we tested arachidonic acid and/or ADP-induced in vitro platelet aggregation of 82 outpatients with chronic aspirin and/or clopidogrel treatment before and after a one-week period of measuring the patient's adherence with the polymedication electronic monitoring system (POEMS). Resistance was found in 20% (aspirin; n = 69) and 25% (clopidogrel; n = 32) of the patients after monitored adherence. Mean platelet aggregation was not (aspirin) or non-significantly (clopidogrel) lowered when compared to baseline. Diabetes mellitus and inflammation were consistently associated with resistance to both drugs, but CYP2C19 polymorphisms could not be confirmed as predictors of clopidogrel response. Electronically compiled multidrug dosing histories allowed the concomitant intake of high-dose lipophilic statins to be identified as a risk factor of impaired response to clopidogrel and revealed that exposure to further potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) was too low for analysis. Multidrug adherence monitoring allowed thus dismissing non-adherence as a major contributor to resistance and inter-individual response variability in an outpatient setting. Additionally, it allowed analysing the impact of DDIs according to the actual exposure to the potentially interfering drugs. Further studies based on this methodology are essential to prevent misleading results due to incomplete adherence and gain additional insight into the impact of timing adherence on antiplatelet drug response.