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.

Age- and sex-specific effects of a long-term lifestyle intervention on body weight and cardiometabolic health markers in adults with prediabetes: results from the diabetes prevention study PREVIEW.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Lifestyle interventions are the first-line treatment option for body weight and cardiometabolic health management. However, whether age groups or women and men respond differently to lifestyle interventions is under debate. We aimed to examine age- and sex-specific effects of a low-energy diet (LED) followed by a long-term lifestyle intervention on body weight, body composition and cardiometabolic health markers in adults with prediabetes (i.e. impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance). METHODS: This observational study used longitudinal data from 2223 overweight participants with prediabetes in the multicentre diabetes prevention study PREVIEW. The participants underwent a LED-induced rapid weight loss (WL) period followed by a 3 year lifestyle-based weight maintenance (WM) intervention. Changes in outcomes of interest in prespecified age (younger: 25-45 years; middle-aged: 46-54 years; older: 55-70 years) or sex (women and men) groups were compared. RESULTS: In total, 783 younger, 319 middle-aged and 1121 older adults and 1503 women and 720 men were included in the analysis. In the available case and complete case analyses, multivariable-adjusted linear mixed models showed that younger and older adults had similar weight loss after the LED, whereas older adults had greater sustained weight loss after the WM intervention (adjusted difference for older vs younger adults -1.25% [95% CI -1.92, -0.58], p<0.001). After the WM intervention, older adults lost more fat-free mass and bone mass and had smaller improvements in 2 h plasma glucose (adjusted difference for older vs younger adults 0.65 mmol/l [95% CI 0.50, 0.80], p<0.001) and systolic blood pressure (adjusted difference for older vs younger adults 2.57 mmHg [95% CI 1.37, 3.77], p<0.001) than younger adults. Older adults had smaller decreases in fasting and 2 h glucose, HbA1c and systolic blood pressure after the WM intervention than middle-aged adults. In the complete case analysis, the above-mentioned differences between middle-aged and older adults disappeared, but the direction of the effect size did not change. After the WL period, compared with men, women had less weight loss (adjusted difference for women vs men 1.78% [95% CI 1.12, 2.43], p<0.001) with greater fat-free mass and bone mass loss and smaller improvements in HbA1c, LDL-cholesterol and diastolic blood pressure. After the WM intervention, women had greater fat-free mass and bone mass loss and smaller improvements in HbA1c and LDL-cholesterol, while they had greater improvements in fasting glucose, triacylglycerol (adjusted difference for women vs men -0.08 mmol/l [-0.11, -0.04], p<0.001) and HDL-cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Older adults benefited less from a lifestyle intervention in relation to body composition and cardiometabolic health markers than younger adults, despite greater sustained weight loss. Women benefited less from a LED followed by a lifestyle intervention in relation to body weight and body composition than men. Future interventions targeting older adults or women should take prevention of fat-free mass and bone mass loss into consideration. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01777893.