Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Celíaca , Deficiencia de Vitamina D , Vitamina D/administración & dosificación , Adolescente , Carbonato de Calcio/administración & dosificación , Enfermedad Celíaca/complicaciones , Enfermedad Celíaca/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Celíaca/dietoterapia , Enfermedad Celíaca/tratamiento farmacológico , Niño , Preescolar , Dieta Sin Gluten , Suplementos Dietéticos , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Proyectos Piloto , Factores de Tiempo , Deficiencia de Vitamina D/diagnóstico , Deficiencia de Vitamina D/tratamiento farmacológico , Deficiencia de Vitamina D/etiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Vitamin D deficiency is common in children with neurodisabilities. Oral vitamin D3 may not be absorbed appropriately due to dysphagia and tube feeding. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy of vitamin D3 buccal spray with that of oral drops. METHODS: Twenty-four children with neurodisabilities (5-17 years) and vitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D ≤20 ng/mL) were randomized to receive vitamin D3 buccal spray 800 IU/daily (n = 12) or oral drops 750 IU/daily (n = 12) for 3 months during winter. RESULTS: Both groups had a significant increase in 25(OH)D (z = 150; p < 0.0001). The differences between baseline and final parathyroid hormone measurements did not reach significance in both groups. Markers of bone formation and resorption did not change significantly in both groups. The satisfaction with the formulation was significantly higher in the patients using spray. CONCLUSION: Vitamin D3 supplementation with buccal spray and oral drops are equally effective in short-term treatment of vitamin D deficiency in children with neurodisabilities. Buccal spray may be more acceptable by the patients.