↓ Skip to main content

Appropriate vitamin D loading regimen for patients with advanced lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Appropriate vitamin D loading regimen for patients with advanced lung cancer
Published in
Nutrition Journal, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12937-016-0203-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. John Hoffer, Line Robitaille, Nelda Swinton, Jason Agulnik, Victor Cohen, David Small, Carmela Pepe, Shaun Eintracht

Abstract

Most patients attending cancer clinics have hypovitaminosis D. Correcting or preventing this abnormal condition could mitigate the emotional and physical complications of their disease, but clinical trials of vitamin D therapy in this setting are hindered by the unavailability of safe, effective and practical loading dose regimens. In this single arm open-label pharmacokinetic trial, outpatients with advanced lung cancer consumed 20,000 IU vitamin D daily with the largest meal of the day for 14 days followed by 10,000 IU per day for a further 7 days. Plasma concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], parathyroid hormone, calcium, vitamin C and C-reactive protein were measured on protocol days 0, 14 and 21, and serum vitamin D binding protein (VDBP) concentrations on days 0 and 21. As a secondary objective, preliminary information was obtained regarding clinical effects of rapid vitamin D loading on mood and symptoms by administering appropriate questionnaires two times at baseline and after 14 and 21 days of vitamin D therapy. Of the 91 patients enrolled in the study, 85 % had hypovitaminosis D and 41 % had hypovitaminosis C. Plasma VDBP concentrations were in the normal range. The vitamin D load increased the average plasma 25(OH)D concentration to 116 ± 34 nmol/L (mean ± SD); the median concentration was 122 nmol/L (interquartile range 103-134); VDBP concentrations did not change. Final plasma 25(OH)D concentrations were subnormal (<75 nmol/L) for 13 % of the patients and sub-target (<120 nmol/L) for 44 % of them. In most cases, subnormal and sub-target 25(OH)D concentrations were attributable to obesity and/or a low baseline 25(OH)D concentration. Mood and symptom scores did not change significantly throughout the 3-week protocol. Hypovitaminosis D and C are very common in outpatients with advanced lung cancer. A vitamin D load of 20,000 IU per day for 14 days failed to achieve the target concentration in 44 % of the participants in this trial. These results suggest that a loading dose of 30,000 IU per day for 14 days would be safe and effective for patients who are obese or at risk of severe hypovitaminosis D. The preliminary nature of the study design, and the failure to achieve target 25(OH)D concentrations for a large proportion of the patients, do not allow any firm conclusion about the clinical effects of correcting hypovitaminosis D in this patient population. Nevertheless, no evidence was obtained that partial correction of hypovitaminosis D greatly improved mood, reduced distress or relieved cancer-related symptoms. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01631526.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 18 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,820,151
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,237
of 1,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,469
of 319,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#16
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,433 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.