It is cost effective and far more practical to treat with Viamin D supplements across population/ communities to have larger positive impact on health. Countries with resource constraints can't test Vitamin D deficiency in their entire population because of high costs.
Yes, this is the standard advice in the UK. Up to 5 years of age children are recommended to receive supplements of approx 7 micrograms (approx 300 units) of vitamin D. The cost of measuring serum vitamin D levels is more than the cost of 4 years supplementation (£50).
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217117/DH-Letter-Vitamin-D-statements-05022013.pdf
Thanks Benjamin. We have 90% prevalence of Vitamin D deficiency in our Pakistani population and not possible to screen entire population due to high cost. We use Vitamin D supplements but keeping in mind possible toxicity if not closely followed.
I would suggest that it is better to test for deficiancy/insufficieny in order to be a little more prescriptive with supplementation but, provided the level of supplementation is sensible, then I don't really see a problem with supplementing without testing the serum 25(OH)D content.
I don't think it's neccesary to test on deficiency. Traditionally living populations in East Africa have a mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration of 115 nmol/l (see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22264449). In the Netherlands most people don't reach 80 nmol/l. The most recommended dose is 10 mcg/day, but that will never be sufficient to reach 80 nmol/l. Be aware that vitamine D is a fat soluble vitamine and therefore the supplement can't be solid.
Typically, only people with certain conditions, including but not limited to osteoporosis, kidney and liver disease, malabsorption syndromes, bone disorders and certain endocrine conditions, are candidates for testing. Older adults and some pregnant or lactating women also can expect to have their doctors recommend vitamin D
Regards
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Comment