Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

High dose vitamin D supplementation does not affect biochemical bone markers in multiple sclerosis – a randomized controlled trial

BMC NeurologyBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:67

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-017-0851-0

Received: 18 November 2016

Accepted: 29 March 2017

Published: 4 April 2017

Abstract

Background

People with multiple sclerosis have high risk of osteoporosis and fractures. A poor vitamin D status is a risk factor for MS, and vitamin D supplementation has been recommended both to prevent MS progression and to maintain bone health.

Methods

We assessed the effect of 20,000 IU vitamin D3 weekly compared to placebo on biochemical markers of bone metabolism in 68 persons with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis.

Results

Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D more than doubled in the vitamin D group, and parathyroid hormone decreased in the vitamin D group compared to the placebo group at week 48 and week 96. There was however no effect on bone formation as measured by procollagen type I N propeptide (PINP), or on bone resorption as measured by C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX1). Neither PINP nor CTX1 predicted bone loss from baseline to week 96.

Conclusions

These findings corroborate the previously reported lack of effect of weekly high dose vitamin D supplementation on bone mass density in the same patients, and suggest that such vitamin D supplementation does not prevent bone loss in persons with MS who are not vitamin D deficient.

Trial registration

The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on April 4 2008, registration number NCT00785473.

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis vitamin D osteoporosis randomized controlled trial

Background

Low levels of vitamin D are associated with increased future risk of developing multiple sclerosis and with increased disease activity [13]. Vitamin D is also essential for bone health. Several studies have shown that people with multiple sclerosis (MS) are at increased risk of developing osteoporosis [4, 5]. Physical disability is likely the main driver of accelerated bone loss in MS, but also disease duration and lifetime steroid dose are associated with low bone mineral density (BMD) [4, 6]. Low BMD is however prevalent also in ambulatory persons with MS even shortly after clinical onset [6, 7], suggesting that shared etiological factors such as low vitamin D may operate in both MS and osteoporosis.

The combination of osteoporosis and high risk of falling may add to the burden of disease through increased risk of fractures. In line with this, large population based studies have shown that persons with MS have a marked increase of fractures compared to the general population [812]. Data from the Danish MS Registry and The National Hospital Discharge Registry showed that the risk of fractures of tibia, hip and femur in persons with MS was three to six times higher than in the general population [10].

Although the role of vitamin D supplementation on disease activity in MS is unclear [13], several authors have suggested that vitamin D should be monitored to prevent osteoporosis and fractures [5, 1416]. The optimal intake of vitamin D and serum level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D is however controversial. Whereas the National Institute of Medicine considers a serum level of 25-hydroxyvitamin (25(OH)D) at 50 nmol/L and a daily intake of 600 IU vitamin D adequate for the general population [17], others argue that the serum level needed for both optimal bone health and for the potentially beneficial non-calcemic effects is at least 75 nmol/L [1820]. There is, however limited evidence on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on bone heath in MS.

We have previously reported a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of weekly supplementation with 20,000 IU vitamin D3 compared to placebo in fully ambulatory (expanded disability status scale ≤4.5) persons with relapsing remitting MS living above the Arctic Circle [21]. This dose has proven safe in several RTCs in the same area [22]. Even though people with MS may need more vitamin D than others to reach the same 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) serum concentration, [23], we expected that this dose would bring the vast majority of patients to 25(OH)D levels considered optimal for bone health and also within the range associated with decreased disease activity. Although bone mineral density (BMD) decreased significantly in the placebo group and not in the vitamin D treated group, the primary outcome (difference in percentage change in BMD between groups) was negative [21].

The markers of bone formation procollagen type I N propeptide (PINP) and bone resorption C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX1) have been shown to predict fracture risk and to reflect the response to osteoporosis treatment [24]. These markers are recommended as reference markers in observational and treatment studies in osteoporosis by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine [25], and could be more sensitive for treatment effects than BMD. The aim of the current study was to examine if CTX and PINP predict bone loss, and if vitamin D3 supplementation affect these markers of bone formation and turnover in persons with MS.

Methods

The design of the RCT have been reported previously [21, 26]. Briefly, 71 RRMS patients from Troms and Finnmark (the northernmost counties in Norway), aged 18–50 years and with Kurtzke’s Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score 4.5 were included in the original study [21]. The exclusion criteria comprised a history of conditions or diseases affecting bone, pregnancy or lactation the past 6 months, use of bone-active medications other than intravenous methylprednisolone for treatment of MS relapses, a history of nephrolithiasis during the previous 5 years, or menopause.

The participants were randomized to receive either once-weekly oral 20,000 IU vitamin D3 (Dekristol™; SWISS CAPS AG, Kirchberg, Switzerland) or placebo. All participants also received 500 mg calcium daily (calcium carbonate, Weifa AS, Oslo, Norway). Participants who had gastrointestinal side effects attributed to Weifa calcium switched to Calcium Sandoz™ effervescent tablets (calcium lactate-gluconate and calcium carbonate, Sandoz A/S, Odense, Denmark), or discontinued the calcium supplement if their estimated dietary calcium intake as measured by a validated food frequency questionnaire exceeded 800 mg/day [27]. By capsule count, all subjects were ≥80% (mean 98%, range 80–100%) adherent to the study medication [21].

Measurement of BMD at the hip (mean of left and right), the spine (anterior–posterior spine L1–L4), and the non-dominant ultra-distal radius by DXA (dual X-ray absorptiometry) was performed by trained technicians at the University Hospital of North-Norway, using a Lunar Prodigy advanced densitometer (Lunar Radiation Corp., Madison, WI, USA.). The long-term precision was 0.26–0.28%, obtained by daily calibration of the densitometer. One fourth of the patients had low BMD (z-scores blow −2) at baseline [6].

Serum samples were collected at baseline (January or February for all participants) and at week 48 and 96 (randomly to intake of vitamin D supplementation), and frozen at −70 °C until batch analyses. 25(OH)D was measured by spectroscopy detecting total concentrations of both 25(OH)D2 and 25(OH)D3 at the Hormone laboratory at Haukeland University Hospital. The coefficient of variat4ion (CV) was 5.3% at 20 nmol/L and 4.0% at 239 nmol/L 25(OH)D. PINP and CTX1 were measured by electrochemiluminiscence at the Hormone laboratory at Oslo University Hospital. The CVs were 11% for PINP and 12% for CTX1, and the detection limits were 5–1200 μg/l and 0,07–6,00 μg/l respectively.

The associations between bone markers and BMD at baseline, and whether the concentrations of PINP and CTX1 at baseline predicted BMD change from baseline to week 96, were analyzed with linear regression. The longitudinal changes in CTX1, PINP and PTH were modelled with two separate linear mixed models. The models included time of measurement, treatment arm, time-treatment interaction, and a random intercept for each participant. The markers were log-transformed, making the estimated differences interpretable as percentages. The models formed the basis for all inferences on the relationship between vitamin D and the markers. To investigate whether disease modifying drugs could influence the results, we also used a model which included the drug treatment status at each sample time.

Results

Serum samples for measurement of bone markers were available from 68 participants who completed the study. Baseline characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 1. As reported previously [28] there were no group differences in age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, use of disease modifying drugs, disability as measured by EDSS, calcium intake or relapse rate the previous year. The serum concentration of 25(OH)D increased to 123.2 ± 34.2 nmol/L at week 96 in the vitamin D group, and to 61.8 ± 25.2 nmol/L in the placebo group. Ionized calcium was similar and unchanged at baseline and week 96 in both groups (1.2 ± 0.0 nmol/L).
Table 1

Baseline characteristics

 

Vitamin D group (N = 35)

Placebo group (N = 33)

Females

N (%)

24 (69)

24 (73)

Age (years)

Mean (range)

40 (21–50)

41 (26–50)

Body mass index

Mean (range)

25.9 (21.0–40.7)

26.4 (18.4–39.9)

Ongoing smoking

N (%)

15 (43)

14 (42)

EDSS

Median (range)

2.5 (0–4.5)

2.0 (0–4.5)

Annualised relapse rate

Mean (range)

0.11 (0–0.54)

0.15 (0–1.10)

Immunomodulatory treatment

N (%)

17 (49)a

17 (52)b

Serum 25(OH)D (nmol/L)

Mean (SD)

55.6 (29.0)

57.3 (21.8)

Hip BMD (mg/cm2)

Mean (SD)

1018.8 (98.8)

968.9 (119.9)

Spine BMD (mg/cm2)

Mean (SD)

1205.2 (117.7)

1165.7 (135.6)

Distal radius BMD (mg/cm2)

Mean (SD)

484.8 (67.1)

472.8 (80.6)

a16 patients on IFN-β and one on glatiramer acetate

b15 patients on IFN-β, one on glatiramer acetate and one on natalizumab

The concentrations of CTX1, PINP and PTH did not differ significantly between the groups at baseline (Table 2). The concentrations of CTX1 and PINP remained similar between treatment groups throughout the study group, whereas PTH was lower in the vitamin D group at both week 48 and at week 96.
Table 2

Bone markers and PTH throughot the study period

 

CTX1 (μg/l)

PINP (μg/l)

PTH pmol/L

Placebo

Vitamin D

p-value*

Placebo

Vitamin D

p-value*

Placebo

Vitamin D

p-value*

Baseline. mean (SD)

0.20 (0.10)

0.22 (0.11)

0.59

43.10 (15.1)

40.32 (10.0)

0.57

4.75 (1.08)

4.68 (1.29)

0.66

Week 48. mean (SD)

0.22 (0.16)

0.21 (0.11)

0.79

43.36 (17.2)

38.56 (10.6)

0.43

3.68 (1.04)

3.13 (0.96)

0.017

Week 96. mean (SD)

0.23 (0.17)

0.23 (0.12)

0.98

42.54 (15.0)

43.52 (10.6)

0.22

3.96 (1.27)

3.39 (1.00)

0.046

*Obtained from linear mixed model

The associations between the bone markers and BMD are presented in Table 3. There was a weak negative association between CTX1 and PINP and hip BMD at baseline, and between CTX1 and spine BMD at baseline (p < 0.05). The baseline marker concentrations did not predict change in BMD from baseline to week 48 or week 96.
Table 3

Association between bone markers at baseline and BMD (regression coefficients)

BMD

CTX1

PINP

Baseline hip

−279.4*

−2.42*

Baseline spine

−385.0*

−2.12

Baseline distal radius

91.3

1.05

DELTA hip

−7.6

0.10

DELTA spine

61.5

0.40

DELTA distal radius

−30.9

0.30

*p < 0.05; DELTA indicated the difference in BMD from baseline to week 96

The effect of vitamin D supplementation was finally analyzed using a linear mixed model for each bone marker with random patient-wise intercepts. There was no significant difference between treatment groups in the change of CTX1, PINP or PTH from baseline to week 48 or from baseline to week 96 (Table 4). These results did not change substantially when immune modulatory treatment was included in the model (results not shown). In total 14 patients received methylprednisolone for MS attack. Of these two in the placebo and two in the vitamin D groups were treated during the last 6 months prior to the first blood sampling, and three in the vitamin D group and one in the placebo group during the last 6 months prior to the last blood sampling. Excluding the 14 patients treated with methylprednisolone did not alter the results (data nor shown).
Table 4

Effect of high dose vitamin D supplementation compared to placebo on bone markers

 

Week 48

Week 96

Change from baseline, percent difference (95% CI)

p-value*

Change from baseline, percent difference (95%CI)

p-value*

PINP

-5.10% (−17.77, 7.56)

0.43

10.26% (−2.48 22.99)

0.12

CTX1

-6.68% (−33.62, 20.25)

0.63

−3.60% (−30.67, 23.48)

0.80

PTH

-13.69% (−29.55, 2.12)

0.09

−10.9% (−26.81, 5.03)

0.17

*Obtained from linear mixed model

Discussion

To our knowledge the effect on vitamin D supplementation on markers of bone formation and resorption in persons with MS has not been reported previously. We found that increasing mean 25(OH)D levels from 56 to 123 nmol/L with weekly high dose vitamin D supplementation did not influence biochemical markers of bone formation or turnover in persons with MS receiving calcium supplementation. This concurs with the previously negative results on BMD in the same cohort [21], and also with data obtained in healthy persons [29]. Moreover, we here showed that neither CTX1 nor PINP at baseline predicted BMD loss the subsequent 96 weeks. This is in contrast with a previous study comprising 29 MS patients followed for 3.1 ± 1.9 years, reporting a decline in BMD in the hip but not in the lumbal spine correlated inversely with bone turnover markers [30]. Whereas the patients included in these studies were fairly comparable regarding disease duration, BMI and disability levels, all known to be important for bone health in MS, only 50% of our patients received immunomodulatory treatment compared to 100% in the previous study [30]. Immunomodulatory drugs, including interferon beta which was most commonly used by our patients, could affect bone loss [31]. The use of immunomodulatory treatment did however not influence the effect of vitamin D on bone markers, and was not associated with BMD at baseline in our patients [32]. Other possible explanations for this discrepancy include differences in sample sizes and duration of follow up.

The vitamin D measurements in this study were performed in January and February and should therefore represent the seasonal nadir fairly well [33]. At this time point 18 of 35 patients in the treatment group had 25(OH)D levels above 50 nmol/L, which are considered adequate for maintenance of good bone health by the Institute of Medicine. Clear evidence of vitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D below 25 nmol) were only recorded in nine patients in each treatment group. It is conceivable that people with vitamin deficiency have a better effect of vitamin D supplementation on bone health than people with adequate vitamin D status, and that the low proportion of patients with vitamin D deficiency contributed to the negative results.

RCTs of vitamin D supplementation have not shown a consistent effect on BMD or fracture risk in the general population [17]. This does not exclude that particular subgroups with increased risk of osteoporosis due to immobilization, inadequate nutrition, medication or disease may need vitamin D supplementation to maintain bone health [8]. Our study population had rather low disease activity and their ambulation was only moderately impaired. MS patients with more advanced disability are more prone to both accelerated bone loss and vitamin D deficiency D [34], and could benefit more from vitamin D supplementation than those included in this study.

There are several strengths and limitations of this study. The randomized design minimized the risk of selection bias, and rigorous follow-up throughout the study period ensured adherence to the study medication. The optimal 25(OH)D level for bone health is not known, but the dose used in this trial was well above 800 IU per day which has been suggested to prevent fracture in meta-analysis [35], and brought 25(OH)D in most patients above 75–100 nmol/L which has been suggested by several experts to be adequate [19, 36]. The main weakness of the study is the limited size, which was not sufficient to perform subgroup analyses or to detect minor yet relevant effects of vitamin D supplementation. Moreover, patients were allowed to continue use of vitamin D supplements, and more than 50% of the patients in the placebo group reported a vitamin D intake exceeding 7.5 μg/day. This concurs with the generally favorable vitamin D status of our patients. It is conceivable that depriving the patients from their vitamin D supplements could have increased the chance for a positive result, but it would expose patients in the placebo group to the risks of vitamin D deficiency, and would be particularly problematic in a population living north of the Arctic Circle. Another potential weakness is the use of weekly dosing of vitamin D3. Although weekly dosing leads to a stable serum concentration of 25(OH)D, which has a long half- life, the effect on other vitamin D metabolites is different. Notably, the serum concentration of native vitamin D, which likely plays an important role as substrate for synthesis of active 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D in several tissues, peaks after six to 8 h and thereafter falls rapidly [37]. It is therefore possible that daily supplementation is better than weekly supplementation of vitamin D.

Conclusions

Our results do not support that high dose weekly vitamin D supplementation is beneficial for bone health in ambulatory persons with MS, and suggest that weekly vitamin D supplementation alone is not sufficient to prevent bone loss in persons with MS who are not vitamin D deficient.

Abbreviations

25(OH)D: 

25-hydroxyvitamion D

BMD: 

Bone mineral density

CTX1: 

C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen

CV: 

Coefficient of variation

MS: 

Multiple sclerosis

PINP: 

Procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide

PTH: 

Parathyroid hormone

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The study was funded by The University of Oslo.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

TH planned the study, collected data, and wrote the manuscript. JCV analyzed the data and revised the manuscript. EFE planned the study and revised the manuscript. LSH and MTK planned the study, collected data and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no competing interest.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Regional Committee for Research Ethics Northern Norway approved the study protocol (REK NORD 98/2006), and participants gave written informed consent to participate and to publication.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Neurology, Akershus University Hospital
(2)
Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo
(3)
Helse Øst Health Services and Research Centre, Akershus University Hospital
(4)
Department of Endocrinology, Oslo University Hospital
(5)
Department of Neurology, University Hospital of North Norway
(6)
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Tromsø

References

  1. Munger KL, Levin LI, Hollis BW, Howard NS, Ascherio A. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and risk of multiple sclerosis. JAMA. 2006;296:2832–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Løken-Amsrud KI, Holmøy T, Bakke SJ, Beiske AG, Bjerve KS, Bjørnarå BT, et al. Vitamin D and disease activity in multiple sclerosis before and during interferon beta treatment. Neurology. 2012;79:267–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Simpson Jr S, Taylor B, Blizzard L, Ponsonby AL, Pittas F, Tremlett H, et al. Higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D is associated with lower relapse risk in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2010;68:193–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Huang Z, Qi Y, Du S, Chen G, Yan W. Bone mineral density levels in adults with multiple sclerosis: A meta-analysis. Int J Neurosci. 2015;125:904–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gupta S, Ahsan I, Mahfooz N, Abdelhamid N, Ramanathan M, Weinstock-Guttman B. Osteoporosis and multiple sclerosis: risk factors, pathophysiology, and therapeutic interventions. CNS Drugs. 2014;28:731–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Steffensen LH, Mellgren SI, Kampman MT. Predictors and prevalence of low bone mineral density in fully ambulatory persons with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. 2010;257:410–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Moen SM, Celius EG, Sandvik L, Nordsletten L, Eriksen EF, Holmoy T. Low bone mass in newly diagnosed multiple sclerosis and clinically isolated syndrome. Neurology. 2011;77:151–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Silk LN, Greene DA, Baker MK, Jander CB. The effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on bone health of male Jockeys. J Sci Med Sport. 2016; doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2016.08.004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bazelier MT, van Staa TP, Uitdehaag BM, Cooper C, Leufkens HG, Vestergaard P, et al. The risk of fracture in patients with multiple sclerosis: the UK general practice research database. J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26:2271–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Bazelier MT, de Vries F, Bentzen J, Vestergaard P, Leufkens HG, van Staa TP, et al. Incidence of fractures in patients with multiple sclerosis: the Danish National Health Registers. Mult Scler. 2012;18:622–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bazelier MT, van Staa TP, Uitdehaag BM, Cooper C, Leufkens HG, Vestergaard P, et al. Risk of fractures in patients with multiple sclerosis: a population-based cohort study. Neurology. 2012;78:1967–73.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Ramagopalan SV, Seminog O, Goldacre R, Goldacre MJ. Risk of fractures in patients with multiple sclerosis: record-linkage study. BMC Neurol. 2012;12:135. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-12-135.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. James E, Dobson R, Kuhle J, Baker D, Giovannoni G, Ramagopalan SV. The effect of vitamin D-related interventions on multiple sclerosis relapses: a meta-analysis. Mult Scler. 2013;19:1571–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hearn AP, Silber E. Osteoporosis in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2010;16:1031–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dobson R, Ramagopalan S, Giovannoni G. Bone health and multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2012;18:1522–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kampman MT, Eriksen EF, Holmoy T. Multiple sclerosis, a cause of secondary osteoporosis? What is the evidence and what are the clinical implications? Acta Neurol Scand Suppl. 2011:44–9.Google Scholar
  17. RossCA TCL, Yaktine AL, Del Valle HB. Institute of Medicine. Daily reference values for calcium and vitamin D. Washington DC: The National Academic Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  18. Priemel M, von DC, Klatte TO, Kessler S, Schlie J, Meier S, et al. Bone mineralization defects and vitamin D deficiency: histomorphometric analysis of iliac crest bone biopsies and circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D in 675 patients. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25:305–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Vieth R. Why the minimum desirable serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level should be 75 nmol/L (30 ng/ml). Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;25:681–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pludowski P, Holick MF, Grant WB, Konstantynowicz J, Mascarenhas MR, Haq A, et al. Vitamin D supplementation guidelines. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2017; doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2017.01.021.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Steffensen LH, Jorgensen L, Straume B, Mellgren SI, Kampman MT. Can vitamin D(3) supplementation prevent bone loss in persons with MS? A placebo-controlled trial. J Neurol. 2011;258:1624–31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Jorde R, Grimnes G, Hutchinson MS, Kjaergaard M, Kamycheva E, Svartberg J. Supplementation with vitamin D does not increase serum testosterone levels in healthy males. Horm Metab Res. 2013;45:675–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Bhargava P, Steele SU, Waubant E, Revirajan NR, Marcus J, Dembele M, et al. Multiple sclerosis patients have a diminished serologic response to vitamin D supplementation compared to healthy controls. Mult Scler. 2016;22:753–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Johansson H, Oden A, Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Morris HA, Cooper C, et al. A meta-analysis of reference markers of bone turnover for prediction of fracture. Calcif Tissue Int. 2014;94:560–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Vasikaran S, Eastell R, Bruyere O, Foldes AJ, Garnero P, Griesmacher A, et al. Markers of bone turnover for the prediction of fracture risk and monitoring of osteoporosis treatment: a need for international reference standards. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:391–420.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kampman MT, Steffensen LH, Mellgren SI, Jorgensen L. Effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on relapses, disease progression and measures of function in persons with multiple sclerosis: exploratory outcomes from a double-blind randomised controlled trial. Mult Scler. 2012;18:1144–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hjartaker A, Andersen LF, Lund E. Comparison of diet measures from a food-frequency questionnaire with measures from repeated 24-hour dietary recalls. The Norwegian Women and Cancer Study. Public Health Nutr. 2007;10:1094–103.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosjo E, Lossius A, Abdelmagid N, Lindstrom JC, Kampman MT, Jorgensen L, et al. Effect of high-dose vitamin D3 supplementation on antibody responses against Epstein-Barr virus in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Mult Scler. 2017;23:395–402.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Aloia J, Bojadzievski T, Yusupov E, Shahzad G, Pollack S, Mikhail M, et al. The relative influence of calcium intake and vitamin D status on serum parathyroid hormone and bone turnover biomarkers in a double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group, longitudinal factorial design. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95:3216–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. McKenna MJ, Murray B, Lonergan R, Redmond JM. Immunomodulators for multiple sclerosis may ameliorate spinal bone loss. Ir J Med Sci. 2013;182:29–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Abraham AK, Ramanathan M, Weinstock-Guttman B, Mager DE. Mechanisms of interferon-beta effects on bone homeostasis. Biochem Pharmacol. 2009;77:175762.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Kampman MT, Steffensen LH. Comment on Shuhaibar et al: Favourable effect of immunomodulator therapy on bone mineral density in multiple sclerosis. Ir J Med Sci. 2009;178:235–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Saltyte Benth J, Myhr KM, Loken-Amsrud KI, Beiske AG, Bjerve KS, Hovdal H, et al. Modelling and prediction of 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in Norwegian relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients. Neuroepidemiology. 2012;39:84–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Huang Z, Qi Y, Du S, Chen G, Yan W. BMI levels with MS Bone mineral density levels in adults with multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Neurosci. 2015;125:904–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Willett WC, Orav EJ, Lips P, Meunier PJ, Lyons RA, et al. A pooled analysis of vitamin D dose requirements for fracture prevention. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:40–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Souberbielle JC, Body JJ, Lappe JM, Plebani M, Shoenfeld Y, Wang TJ, et al. Vitamin D and musculoskeletal health, cardiovascular disease, autoimmunity and cancer: Recommendations for clinical practice. Autoimmun Rev. 2010;9:709–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hollis BW, Wagner CL. Clinical review: The role of the parent compound vitamin D with respect to metabolism and function: Why clinical dose intervals can affect clinical outcomes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98:4619–28.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement