Comparison of calcifediol with vitamin D for prevention or cure of vitamin D deficiency

Abstract

Vitamin D deficiency remains prevalent, with about 7% of the world's population living with severe vitamin D deficiency and about one third with mild deficiency. We compare the relative merits of calcifediol or 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) compared to vitamin D itself for supplementation as to prevent or cure vitamin D deficiency. The intestinal absorption of calcifediol is nearly 100% and thus higher than that of vitamin D itself. Moreover, calcifediol is absorbed by the intestinal cells and transported through the portal vein and thus immediately accessible to the circulation, while vitamin D is transported with chylomicrons through the lymph system. Therefore, in case of fat malabsorption or after bariatric surgery, calcifediol is much better absorbed in comparison with vitamin D itself. Serum 25OHD increases linearly with increasing doses of calcifediol, whereas serum 25OHD reaches a plateau when higher oral doses of vitamin D are used. Calcifediol, on a weight basis, is about 3 times more potent than vitamin D in subjects with mild vitamin D deficiency. This potency is even 6-8 times higher than vitamin D when baseline serum 25OHD is higher or when large doses are compared. In conclusion, calcifediol is an alternative option to correct vitamin D deficiency and may even be the preferred strategy in case of intestinal fat malabsorption, after bariatric surgery or in case of other conditions with suspected impaired 25-hydroxylase activity in the liver.

Keywords: 25-hydroxyvitamin D; Bariatric surgery; CYP2R1; Calcifediol; Intestinal absorption; Vitamin D; Vitamin D deficiency.