Imaginative omega 3 solutions: Incromega™ 3mulsion DHA
Croda Europe
The study published in Neurology, reports that giving MS patients high doses – 6000 international units (IU) – of vitamin D may not offer any more protection against relapses than those who take low doses (1000IU) of the sunshine vitamin.
"We did not find added benefit from high-dose vitamin D over and above ongoing low-dose vitamin D supplementation, but these results need to be confirmed with larger studies," said Dr Mark Stein, of The Royal Melbourne Hospital and The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Parkville, Australia.
"We are not saying vitamin D doesn't work, but if it does, there appears no benefit of high over low,” said Stein, who added that although no evidence of benefit was found in the current study, “it doesn't mean there isn't a benefit."
Study details
The six-month study involved 23 people with the relapsing-remitting form of multiple sclerosis.
All participants received low-dose vitamin D (of 1,000 IU) to prevent vitamin D deficiency. Half of the participants also received a high-dose vitamin D2 supplement (6000 IU) to elevate their serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level to levels, whilst the other half received a placebo high-dose supplement.
MRI scans of the participants' brains were performed at the start of the study and again after four, five and six months.
Stein and his team reported that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of new abnormalities that had formed in the brain after six months, and found no significant difference in the change in the total volume of brain abnormalities.
They reported that 37% (four out of 11) of people taking the high-dose vitamin D had a relapse where their MS symptoms worsened during the study, while none of the 12 taking only low-dose vitamin D had any relapses.
However the researchers noted that due to the small number of participants in their study the finding that higher doses may lead to more relapses is cast in doubt.
Stein also said that the study only involved people who suffered from MS for an average of six years: "It's possible that studies of high-dose vitamin D at an earlier stage of MS may lead to different results," he speculated.
Source: Neurology
Volume 77, Number 17, Pages 1611-1618, doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182343274
“A randomized trial of high-dose vitamin D2 in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis”
Authors: M.S. Stein, Y. Liu, O.M. Gray, J.E. Baker, S.C. Kolbe, M.R. Ditchfield, et al
8 comments (Comments are now closed)
A study doomed to fail?
That the researchers found no benefit in using D2 needs to be looked at in light of the fact that a recent Cochrane study found benefit in D3 but not D2. One wonders at the choice. Also this says nothing about any effect of sun exposure as that is one of the few sources of sulfated D3. Also any vitamin D study that last less than a year risks being confounded by the normal seasonal change in D levels
Report abuse
Posted by Vince
22 November 2011 | 16h04
Study flaws
In addition to the comments mentioning D2 and the authors' conclusions incorrectly not distinguishing the massive differences between D2 and D3, in the high dose arm there is one patient who had 38 lesions at baseline. At every time point this patient had a new lesion totalling 7 of the 14 lesions in the high dose arm, an obvious outlier. Such should never be included in the population analysis. In addition, in the first 4 months when the effect of D2 to raise plasma 25D is most pronounced the lesions in high dose are half that of the low dose arm. Poor scientific work and biased analyses.
Report abuse
Posted by Greg
11 November 2011 | 09h59
D2??? And they wonder why they saw no difference?
Wow, talk about a study being set up to fail! D2 Really???
Worst part is... people who don't bother to take 15 minutes out of their day to do even a little nutrition study will swear on this study as the gospel according to the government!
Good thing a growing number of us will see right thru this BS "study".
Report abuse
Posted by LDP
02 November 2011 | 19h30
They used D2 not D3!
Was D3 too expensive??? For them to make a claim based on this flawed protocol is ingenuous. They need to go back to the drawing board and do it RIGHT next time.
Report abuse
Posted by Sheldon
27 October 2011 | 05h29
?
What a useless paper. Use D3 next time, then publish something. It's It's just like me doing a research on the effects of omega-3's but using omega-6. It's scary who can become a Medical Doctor these days.
Report abuse
Posted by Nathan
26 October 2011 | 16h57
Ergocalciferol is less effective than Cholecalciferol
When 7-dehydrocholesterol near the human skin surface is subjected to UVB CHOLECALCIFEROL (Vitamin D3) is created. There are several studies showing ERGOCALCIFEROL speeds up the catabolism of Vitamin D. This research used the plant rather than the human form. People who have used EFFECTIVE amounts (5000iu/D) of the HUMAN form Vitamin D3, generally find it takes at least a year for levels to reach equilibrium and some require 3yrs to achieve homoeostasis. A study lasting only 6 months therefore would be unlikely to find any effect.
Report abuse
Posted by Ted Hutchinson
26 October 2011 | 10h12
Synthetic Vit. D
Please help your readers understand the difference between a laboratory produced vitamin D and the D found in whole or bio-active foods.The human body assimilates the synthetic form as an unknown, where as the food form is utilized properly. I would think the
study would have shown a positive effect if the body recognized it as a food form.
Thank you as always, for at least publishing both sides.
Sincerely ,
William J.Bowers
Report abuse
Posted by William Bowers
25 October 2011 | 22h28
Big Difference
There's a big difference in D2 and D3. D3 is 87% more bioavailable. It's also less expensive and does not require a prescription.
Report abuse
Posted by JL Chastain
25 October 2011 | 17h59
Read all comments (8)