Summary
Low vitamin D status has been associated with multiple sclerosis (MS) prevalence and risk, but the therapeutic potential of vitamin D in established MS has not been explored. Canadian researchers assess the tolerability of high-dose oral vitamin D and its impact on biochemical, immunologic, and clinical outcomes in patients with MS prospectively. Burton JM, Kimball S, Vieth R, Bar-Or A, Dosch HM, Cheung R, Gagne D, D'Souza C, Ursell M, O'Connor P. Neurology. 2010 Jun 8;74(23):1852-9. Epub 2010 Apr 28.
Details
An open-label randomized prospective controlled 52-week trial
matched patients with MS for demographic and disease
characteristics, with randomization to treatment or control
groups. Treatment patients received escalating vitamin D doses up
to 40,000 IU/day over 28 weeks to raise serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D
[25(OH)D] rapidly and assess tolerability, followed by 10,000
IU/day (12 weeks), and further down titrated to 0 IU/day. Calcium
(1,200 mg/day) was given throughout the trial. Primary endpoints
were mean change in serum calcium at each vitamin D dose and a
comparison of serum calcium between groups. Secondary endpoints
included 25(OH)D and other biochemical measures, immunologic
biomarkers, relapse events, and Expanded Disability Status Scale
(EDSS) score.
Forty-nine patients (25 treatment, 24 control) were enrolled
[mean age 40.5 years, EDSS 1.34, and 25(OH)D 78 nmol/L]. All
calcium-related measures within and between groups were normal.
Despite a mean peak 25(OH)D of 413 nmol/L, no significant adverse
events occurred. Although there may have been confounding
variables in clinical outcomes, treatment group patients appeared
to have fewer relapse events and a persistent reduction in T-cell
proliferation compared to controls.
CONCLUSIONS: High-dose vitamin D (approximately
10,000 IU/day) in multiple sclerosis is safe, with evidence of
immunomodulatory effects.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This trial provides
Class II evidence that high-dose vitamin D use for 52 weeks in
patients with multiple sclerosis does not significantly increase
serum calcium levels when compared to patients not on high-dose
supplementation. The trial, however, lacked statistical precision
and the design requirements to adequately assess changes in
clinical disease measures (relapses and Expanded Disability
Status Scale scores), providing only Class level IV evidence for
these outcomes.