4.4 Article

A randomized clinical trial comparing 3 different replacement regimens of vitamin D in clinically asymptomatic pediatrics and adolescents with vitamin D insufficiency

Journal

ITALIAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 42, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s13052-016-0314-z

Keywords

Vitamin D insufficiency; Vitamin D deficiency; 25 (OH) D; Replacment regimens

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Pediatric and Adolescent populations both have special needs for vitamin D especially for growing bone. Inadequate vitamin D is defined as 25 (OH) D(25hydroxy vitamin D) < 30 ng/ml. Methods: We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial from July 2014 over 1 year, aiming to assess the changes in 25 (OH) D and biochemical outcome on calcium and PTH(parathyroid hormone) using 3 different regimens of vitamin D replacement. Initial and 4 month 25 (OH) D, calcium, PTH and 12 month 25 (OH) D levels were assayed. Participants divided into 3 groups: 1) given 400 IU daily, 2) given 45000 IU weekly for 2 months then 400 IU daily, 3) given 2000 IU daily for 3 months then 1000 IU daily. Results: The results showed significant difference between the 3 groups as regards 25 (OH) D at 4 and 12 months (P < 0.001). Regimens used in group 2 and 3 caused increase in 25 (OH) D after 4 month (median increase is 225% and 200% respectively). 25 (OH) D dropped in group 1 and 2 (median decrease is 42 and 53% respectively) but continued to increase in group 3 (median change is 6%). In group 2 serum calcium median change was 1.2% with few cases of hypercalcuria. 94.9, 76.1 and 7.7 are the percent of vitamin D deficient participants in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively after 12 months follow up. Conclusion: We advise as a replacement for vitamin D insufficiency, low loading dose with high maintaince dose rather than the opposite to achieve steady increase in serum 25 (OH) D with no hypercalcemic side effects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available