Skip to main content

New Guideline on Vitamin D and Postmenopausal Health

January 27, 2012 — A European Menopause and Andropause Society (EMAS) position statement on the role of vitamin D after menopause notes that the recommended daily allowance is 600 IU/day, or 800 IU/day for those 71 years of age or older. The new guidelines were published in the January issue of Maturitas.
"There is emerging evidence on the widespread tissue effects of vitamin D," write Faustino R. Pérez-Lópeza, MD, PhD, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain, and colleagues. "Epidemiological and prospective studies have related vitamin D deficiency with not only osteoporosis but also cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, infections and neurodegenerative disease. However the evidence is robust for skeletal but not nonskeletal outcomes where data from large prospective studies are lacking."
Based on a literature review and the consensus of expert opinion, the position statement panel concluded that the leading natural source of vitamin D is sunlight exposure stimulating synthesis in the skin. Dietary sources, which are not as significant as cutaneous synthesis, include animal-based foods such as fatty fish, eggs, and milk.
Measurement of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels allows determination of vitamin D status, with optimal levels ranging from 30 to 90 ng/mL (75 - 225 nmol/L). However, different countries vary in their recommendations concerning optimal vitamin D levels. Factors affecting vitamin D levels include season of the year (lower in the winter), latitude, altitude, air pollution, skin pigmentation, use of sunscreens, and skin coverage by clothing.
Obesity; malabsorption syndromes; use of anticonvulsants, antiretrovirals, or various other medications, skin aging, little sun exposure, and living in residential care facilities have been associated with low serum 25(OH)D levels.
The recommended daily allowance of vitamin D is 600 IU/day, but this should increase to 800 IU/day in those patients at least 71 years of age. Postmenopausal women can generally achieve healthy levels of vitamin D though exposure without sunscreens to regular midday sunlight for 15 minutes, 3 to 4 times a week. Ingestion of vitamin D–fortified foods does not necessarily provide sufficient amounts.
When supplementation is needed, either vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) or vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) may be appropriate. Depending on the dose used and the presence of renal disease or other comorbidities, monitoring may be indicated.
Specific summary recommendations include the following:
  • Clinicians should recognize that vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency are widespread, affecting up to 70% of European populations (including those living in sunny regions).
  • Healthy postmenopausal women may achieve adequate serum concentrations of vitamin D through either sun exposure (15 minutes per day, 3 - 4 times a week) or supplementation with 800 to 1000 IU/day.
  • To achieve adequate levels, women with low serum 25(OH)D may need doses ranging from 4000 to 10,000 IU/day.
  • Specific tailored doses of vitamin D supplements are needed for women with morbid obesity, both before and after gastrointestinal bypass surgery, malabsorption syndromes, and/or hepatic or renal diseases.
  • Adequate amounts of vitamin D and specific bone-conserving therapies are indicated for women with vitamin D deficiency, osteoporosis, and/or previous incidental fractures. If there are no associated risk factors for low serum vitamin D levels, doses should be from 800 to 1200 IU/day.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...