Urinary Metabolic Profiles after Vitamin D2 Versus Vitamin D3 Supplementation
Presentation Number: SUN 347
Date of Presentation: April 2nd, 2017
La-or Chailurkit*1, Hataikarn Nimitphong2, Sunee Saetung3 and Boonsong Ongphiphadhanakul4
1Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand, 2Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand, 3Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand, 4Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
Urinary metabolic profiles after vitamin D2 versus vitamin D3 supplementation
Laor Chailurkit, PhD, Hataikarn Nimitphong, MD, Sunee Saetung, MSc, Boonsong Ongphiphadhanakul, MD
Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
Vitamin D3 increases circulation 25(OH)D levels more effectively than vitamin D2. However, whether the biological effects of vitamin D3 versus vitamin D2 are different at similar circulating concentrations is controversial. In the present study, urinary metabolic profiles in response to vitamin D3 or D2 supplementation were used to assess the potential biological difference between vitamin D3 and D2.
Subjects consisted of 30 subjects with impaired fasting glucose intolerance and/or impaired glucose tolerance. Subjects were randomized into two groups, vitamin D2 (20,0000 IU weekly, n = 15) or vitamin D3(15,000 IU weekly, n = 15). Urine and serum samples were taken at two different time points for each subject (at baseline and at 12 weeks). Urinary metabolic profiling was performed by using liquid chromatography electrospray ionization quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-QTOF-MS). Serum calcium was analyzed on an automated biochemical analyzer and serum intact parathyroid hormone was determined by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay.
At baseline, there was no statistically significant difference in clinical characteristics including age, gender, body mass index, waist circumference and 25(OH)D levels. Weekly administration of 20,000 U D2 for 12 weeks resulted in comparable 25(OH)D concentrations as compared to weekly 15,000 U D3 supplementation (39.2 ± 1.4 vs. 38.8 ± 1.5 ng/ml, p = 0.84 ). Moreover, no difference in serum calcium (9.0 ± 0.1 vs. 8.9 ± 0.1, p = 0.52) or intact parathyroid hormone (49.5 ± 3.2 vs. 46.0 ± 5.0, p = 0.54) at 12 weeks was found. Mass spectrometry revealed 371 urinary metabolites which were subsequently identified using the METLIN database. Principle component analysis did not reveal apparent segregation of metabolites according to D2 or D3 supplementation. Moreover, using partial least square regression, no apparent separation between the D2 and the D3 group was found. No important metabolite influencing the separation of the D2 from the D3group was found using variables importance on projection analysis.
Conclusions: Although vitamin D2 and D3 may possess different pharmacokinetic characteristics, at comparable circulating 25(OH)D concentrations, vitamin D2 or D3 supplementation does not appear to result in different urinary metabolic profile. Our finding does not support a biological difference between vitamin D2 and D3.
Nothing to Disclose: LC, HM, SS, BO
Nothing to Disclose: LOC, HN, SS, BO