Rate of change of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D following sublingual and capsular vitamin D preparations.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019 Sep 23. doi: 10.1038/s41430-019-0503-0
Williams CE1, Williams EA2, Corfe BM3,4.
Poor responses to oral are often due to poor genes or poor gut
- Topical Vitamin D provides more benefits than oral sometimes - many studies
- Nanoemulsion may be more bio-available and faster than spray in mouth
- Autistics have half of the response to Vitamin D – RCT Oct 2018
- Poor responses to UV and Vitamin D were correlated to just 4 poor genes – June 2019
- Vitamin D Nutrigenomics - High, Medium, and Low Responders - March 2019
- Overview Vitamin D Dose-Response
- Response to Vitamin D varied by 12 ng due to gene variants (CYP2R1) – Aug 2019
- Huge variation in response to vitamin D supplementation – personal vitamin D response index – Dec 2016
- Vitamin D sprayed inside cheeks (buccal spray) - several studies
- Sublingual vitamin D
Overview Gut and vitamin D contains gut-friendly information
Getting Vitamin D into your body has the following chart
Getting Vitamin D into your body also has the following
If poorly functioning gut
Bio-D-Mulsion Forte – especially made for those with poorly functioning guts, or perhaps lacking gallbladder
Sublingual – goes directly into the bloodstream
Fat-soluble Vitamins go thru the slow lymph system
you can make your own sublingual by dissolving Vitamin D in water or use nano form
Oil: 1 drop typically contains 400 IU, 1,000 IU, or 4,000 IU, typically not taste good
Topical – goes directly into the bloodstream. Put oil on your skin, Use Aloe vera cream with Vitamin D, or make your own
Vaginal – goes directly into the bloodstream. Prescription-only?
Bio-Tech might be useful – it is also water-soluble
Vitamin D sprayed inside cheeks (buccal spray) - several studies
and, those people with malabsorption problems had a larger response to spray
Inject Vitamin D quarterly into muscle, into vein, or perhaps into body cavity if quickly needed
Nanoparticles could be used to increase vitamin D getting to the gut – Oct 2015
Poor guts need different forms of vitamin D has the following
Guesses of Vitamin D response if poor gut
| Bio | Form | Speed | Duration |
| 10 | Injection ($$$) or Calcidiol or Calcitriol | D - Slow C -Fast | Long |
| 10 | Sun/UVB | Slow | Long |
| 10 | Topical (skin patch/cream, vagina) | Slow Fast nano | Normal |
| 9 | Nanoemulsion -mucosal perhaps activates VDR | Fast | Normal |
| 9? | Inhaled (future) | Fast | Normal |
| 8 | Bio-D-Mulsion Forte | Normal | Normal |
| 6 | Water soluble (Bio-Tech) | Normal | Normal |
| 4 | Sublingual/spray (some goes into gut) | Fast | Normal |
| 3 | Coconut oil based | Slow | Normal |
| 2 | Food (salmon etc.) | Slow | Normal |
| 2 | Olive oil based (majority) | Slow | Normal |
10= best bioavailable, 0 = worst, guesses have a range of +-2
Speed: Fast ~2-6 hours, Slow ~10-30 hours
Duration: Long ~3-6 months, Normal = ~2 months
Download the PDF from Sci-Hub via VitaminDWiki
Sublingual had slightly faster response than oral
Sublingual response rate 1.6 X higher than oral
Topical is blocked by a gene in ~10% of population - VitaminDWiki
BACKGROUND:
Vitamin D is critical for skeletal health, and is increasingly associated with other pathologies encompassing gastrointestinal, immunological and psychological effects. A significant proportion of the population exhibits suboptimal levels of vitamin D, particularly in Northern latitudes in winter. Supplementation is advocated, but few data are available on achievable or typical rates of change. There has been considerable interest in the potential use of sublingual sprays for delivery of nutrient supplements, but data on efficacy remain sparse.
METHODS:
A randomised, placebo-controlled, three-arm parallel design study was conducted in healthy volunteers (n = 75) to compare the rate of change of vitamin D status in response to vitamin D3 (3000 IU/day) supplementation in capsule and sublingual spray preparations over a 6-week period between January and April 2017. Blood 25(OH)D concentrations were measured after day 0, 3, 7, 14, 21 and 42 days of supplementation with 3000 IU per diem.
RESULTS:
Baseline measurements show 25(OH)D deficiency (<30 nmol/l), insufficiency (31-46 nmol/l) and sufficiency (> 50 mmol/l) in 14.9, 44.6 and 40.5% of the participants, respectively. There was a significant elevation in blood concentrations of 25(OH)D in both of the treatment arms (capsule p = 0.003, spray p = 0.001) compared with control. The capsule and spray were equally efficacious. The rate of change ranged from 0.69 to 3.93 (capsule) and 0.64 to 3.34 (spray) nmol/L day with average change in blood 25(OH)D levels of 2 nmol/l/day. Rates followed a simple normal distribution in the study population (ks = 0.94 and 0.82 for capsule and spray, respectively). The data suggest that rates of change are higher in individuals with lower levels of 25(OH)D.
CONCLUSIONS:
A sublingual vitamin D spray is an effective mode of delivery for supplementation in a healthy population. The data provide reference values and ranges for the rate of change of 25(OH)D for nutrikinetic analyses.