4.0 Article

Vitamin D replacement therapy in persons with spinal cord injury

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE
Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 203-207

Publisher

AMER PARAPLEGIA SOC
DOI: 10.1080/10790268.2005.11753813

Keywords

vitamin D deficiency; 25 hydroxyvitamin D; calcium; parathyroid hormone; spinal cord injuries; osteoporosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Objective: An increased prevalence of vitamin D deficiency has been reported in persons with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI), but treatment guidelines for replacement are not available. The purpose of this study was to evaluate two types of vitamin D therapy on calcium metabolism and vitamin D status in persons with SCI. Methods: Ten subjects with chronic SCI who were vitamin D deficient received 25 hydroxyvitamin D-3 [25(OH)D], 50 mu g twice a week, for 14 days (Study 1). Regardless of vitamin D status, 40 subjects received vitamin D 3 800 IU (20 mu g) daily for 12 months (Study 2). Supplemental calcium was administered. The response to therapy was determined by the effect upon serum 25(OH)D levels. Results are expressed as mean +/- standard deviation. Results: In Study 1, serum 25(OH)D levels increased by day 14 (8.7 +/- 2.1 vs 14.7 +/- 3.6 ng/mL; P < 0.0005). However, in 8 of 10 subjects, 25(OH)D levels were still below the absolute lower limit of normal. Serum calcium levels were not significantly different, but urinary calcium excretion increased (103 +/- 81 vs 184 +/- 145 mg/d; P < 0.01). Serum parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels decreased (35 +/- 26 vs 17 +/- 12 pg/ mL; P < 0.01). In Study 2, after 12 months of vitamin D supplementation, 9 subjects had an absolute and 23 had a relative vitamin D deficiency, compared with 33 and 6 subjects, respectively, at baseline. By 12 months, the 25(OH)D level increased (10.7 +/- 7.1 to 22.5 +/- 7.5 ng/mL; P < 0.0001) and the serum PTH level decreased (37 +/- 16 vs 25 +/- 11 pg/mL; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Although 25(OH)D levels significantly increased in both studies, the replacement therapies employed were not sufficient to recommend for adoption for clinical use, indicating the need for higher doses and/or for longer periods of administration.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available