4.7 Article

Can vitamin D3 supplementation prevent bone loss in persons with MS? A placebo-controlled trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 258, 期 9, 页码 1624-1631

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-011-5980-6

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; Clinical trials randomised controlled (CONSORT agreement); Osteoporosis; Bone mineral density; 25-Hydroxyvitamin D

资金

  1. The Department of Laboratory Medicine
  2. University of Tromso
  3. Research Council of Norway
  4. Odd Fellows Research Foundation for Multiple Sclerosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a possible cause of secondary osteoporosis. In this phase II trial we assessed whether a weekly dose of 20,000 IU vitamin D-3 prevents bone loss in ambulatory persons with MS age 18-50 years. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00785473. All patients managed at the University Hospital of North Norway who fulfilled the main inclusion criteria were invited to participate in this double-blinded trial. Participants were randomised to receive 20,000 IU vitamin D-3 or placebo once a week and 500 mg calcium daily for 96 weeks. The primary outcome was the effect of the intervention on percentage change in bone mineral density (BMD) at the hip, the spine, and the ultradistal radius over the study period. Of 71 participants randomised, 68 completed. Mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels in the intervention group increased from 55 nmol/L at baseline to 123 nmol/L at week 96. After 96 weeks, percentage change in BMD did not differ between groups at any site. BMD decreased at the hip, by 1.4% in the placebo group (95% CI -2.3 to -0.4, SD 2.7, p = 0.006) and by 0.7% in the treatment group (-1.6 to 0.2, 2.7, p = 0.118), difference 0.7% (-1.9 to 0.7, p = 0.332). Findings were not altered by adjustment for sex or serum 25(OH)D. Supplementation with 20,000 IU vitamin D-3 a week did not prevent bone loss in this small population. Larger studies are warranted to assess the effect of vitamin D on bone health in persons with MS.

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