4.7 Article

Hormonal Contraceptive Use Is Associated With Higher Total but Unaltered Free 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Serum Concentrations

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 103, 期 6, 页码 2385-2391

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2018-00336

关键词

-

资金

  1. Merck Selbstmedikation GmbH (Darmstadt, Germany)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Intake of hormonal contraceptives (HC) is associated with higher total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH) D] concentrations, but the effect of HC on free 25(OH) D is unclear. Objective: We investigated whether free 25(OH) D concentrations differ according to use of HC. Design: This is a post hoc analysis of a randomized open trial. Setting: This study was conducted from 13 January to 9 May, 2016, at a clinical research organization in Esslingen, Germany. Participants: We included 201 apparently healthy women of childbearing age. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a daily multimicronutrient supplement for 8 weeks; the supplement contained 200 IU (n = 100) or 800 IU (n = 101) of vitamin D3. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was the difference in free 25(OH) D between users and nonusers of HC. Results: Overall, 176 participants [median (25th to 75th percentiles) age: 25 (22 to 29) years] with available free 25(OH) D were included in the present analysis. At baseline, total 25(OH) D was significantly higher in users (n = 110) than in nonusers (n = 66) of HC [49.2 (33.4 to 63.4) vs 39.1 (23.8 to 52.5) nmol/L; P < 0.001], whereas there was no difference in free 25(OH) D [7.87 (6.50 to 10.11) vs 7.88 (6.35 to 10.12) pmol/L; P = 0.923]. These results were confirmed after multimicronutrient supplementation and in subgroups according to treatment allocation. Conclusions: Use of HC was associated with, on average, 26% higher total 25(OH) D, whereas free 25(OH) D values did not differ according to use of HC. These findings are relevant for epidemiological studies, but the physiological implications remain to be clarified.

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