4.6 Article

Effect of supplemental vitamin D and calcium on serum sclerostin levels

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 170, 期 4, 页码 645-650

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-13-0862

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. National Institute on Aging [AG10353]
  2. National Institutes of Health
  3. Amgen, Inc.
  4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service [58-1950-0-014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Serum sclerostin levels have been reported to be inversely associated with serum 25OHD levels, but the effect of vitamin D and calcium supplementation on serum sclerostin levels is unknown. This study was carried out to determine whether vitamin D and calcium supplementation altered serum sclerostin levels in healthy older adults. Design: We measured serum sclerostin levels at baseline and after 2 years in 279 men and women who participated in a placebo-controlled vitamin D (700 IU/day) and calcium (500 mg/day) intervention trial carried out in men and women aged >= 65 years. Method: Serum sclerostin levels were measured using the MesoScale Discovery chemiluminescence assay. Results: In the men, sclerostin levels increased over 2 years by 4.11+/-1.81 ng/l (13.1%) in the vitamin D plus calcium-supplemented group and decreased by 3.16+/-1.78 ng/l (10.9%) in the placebo group (P=0.005 for difference in change). Adjustments for the season of measurement, baseline physical activity levels, baseline serum sclerostin levels, and total body bone mineral content did not substantially alter the changes. In the women, there was no significant group difference in change in serum sclerostin levels either before or after the above-mentioned adjustments. In both the sexes, vitamin D and calcium supplementation significantly increased serum ionized calcium levels and decreased parathyroid hormone levels. Conclusion: Men and women appear to have different serum sclerostin responses to vitamin D and calcium supplementation. The reason for this difference remains to be determined.

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

4.6
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