4.7 Article

Effects on Serum Inflammatory Cytokines of Cholecalciferol Supplementation in Healthy Subjects with Vitamin D Deficiency

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 14, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14224823

关键词

vitamin D; cholecalciferol; osteoporosis; cytokines; supplementation; immune response; autoimmune diseases

资金

  1. Abiogen Pharma, Pisa, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Supplementation of cholecalciferol in young healthy individuals deficient in vitamin D resulted in a decrease in serum concentrations of IL-6 and IL-17A.
The effects of different cholecalciferol supplementation regimens on serum inflammatory cytokines in healthy subjects with vitamin D deficiency are still lacking. This is a single-center, open-label, randomized, parallel group study involving healthy subjects deficient in vitamin D (baseline 25OHD < 20 ng/mL) receiving oral cholecalciferol with three different dosing regimens: Group A: 10,000 IU/day for 8 weeks followed by 1000 IU/day for 4 weeks; Group B: 50,000 IU/week for 12 weeks and Group C: 100,000 IU every other week for 12 weeks. IL-17A, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-23 and TNF alpha were measured at baseline and at week 4, 8, 12, and 16. 75 healthy subjects were enrolled (58.7% female), with an average age of 34.1 +/- 10.2 years. No statistical differences were observed among groups at baseline for either IL-6, IL-17A, IL-23, IL-8 or IL-10 at any time point; TNF alpha was indetectable. Concerning the whole sample, the time trend analysis showed a statistically significant linear trend for decreasing values over the treatment period for IL-6 (p = 0.016) and IL-17A (p = 0.006), while no significant time trends were observed for the other teste cytokines. No significant differences were found in the serum concentrations of the tested cytokines between week 12 and week 16. In young healthy individuals deficient in vitamin D, cholecalciferol administration showed a decrease in the serum IL-6 and IL-17A concentrations, without marked differences using the three regimens.

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

4.7
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