4.5 Review

Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D response to vitamin D supplementation in infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical intervention trials

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 59, 期 1, 页码 359-369

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00394-019-01912-x

关键词

Vitamin D-2; Vitamin D-3; Infancy; 25-Hydroxyvitamin D; Nutritional rickets prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose For the prevention of nutritional rickets, 400 IU vitamin D daily and circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) concentrations > 50 nmol/L are recommended, whereas the toxicity threshold is set at 250 nmol/L. We synthesized the evidence for the effect of vitamin D supplementation on incremental 25OHD in infants up to 1 year of age. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention trials in several databases. A total of 87 records were identified for full-text review and 27 articles with 61 studies were included in the final analysis. Results The selected 61 studies included 1828 participants. Nineteen cohorts had already mean baseline 25OHD levels >= 50 nmol/L. The weighted mean difference in 25OHD following vitamin D supplementation was + 49.4 nmol/L (95% CI 43.6-55.3 nmol/L; P < 0.001). The increment was dose-dependent (P = 0.002), was higher in full-term than in pre-term infants (P < 0.001), was higher in infants with baseline 25OHD < 50 nmol/L as compared to >= 50 nmol/L (P = 0.001), and was marginally influenced by the 25OHD test procedure (P = 0.080). Vitamin D-3 doses of 400 IU/day were sufficient to achieve 25OHD concentrations >= 50 nmol/L in most full-term infants. A 25OHD level of 250 nmol/L was not exceeded in >= 97.5% of infants at doses between 200 and 1200 IU/day, but potentially in >= 2.5% of infants at a dose of 1600 IU/day. Conclusions Vitamin D supplementation of 400 IU/day is sufficient for achieving 25OHD concentrations able to prevent nutritional rickets. A more personalized vitamin D dosing strategy would require 25OHD testing, but also assay standardization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据