Effect of pharmacological doses of vitamin D during pregnancy on placental protein status and birth weight

Kaur, Jasbinder; Marya, R.K.; Rathee, Sushila; Lal, Harbans; Singh, Gurmit

doi:10.1016/s0271-5317(05)80400-2

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…of OBG,Gandhi hospital,Secunderabad. Parity matched Cases and controls were chosen according to inclusion and exclusion criteria .Supplementation of Vit-D was done to cases,Dosage-60000IU sachets once a week for three months that is for entire second trimester.Serum vitamin D level was measured by HPLC method.During antenatal checkups along with regular obstetric examination BP and UA were measured.Diagnosis of preeclampsia was done according to ACOG 2013 task force criteria.Among 100 cases and controls -4 cases and 9 controls developed preeclampsia in our study In all the above mentioned studies mean vitamin D level is low among preeclamptic women than in normal women Our results are similar to the above mentioned studies Kaur et al, found that supplementation of vitamin D in 60,000 IU during 6th and 7th month of pregnancy increases protein, DNA and RNA content of placenta and improved the placental growth 21 . Recent studies have also demonstrated the reno-protective effects of Vitamin D analogs .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Role of Vitamin-D Supplementation In Prevention of Preeclampsia

H¹,

K²,

Jyothirmayee.³

2016

IOSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Role of Vitamin-D Supplementation In Prevention of Preeclampsia

H¹,

K²,

Jyothirmayee.³

2016

IOSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Birth weights of infants in this group were also significantly higher than in the unsupplemented group but not by as much as in the high dose supplement group. The third study reporting a positive association between maternal vitamin D supplementation and offspring birth weight was also from India (Kaur 98 , composite bias score −7, high risk). Again significantly higher infant birth weight was found in the supplemented group (2 doses of 60,000 IU cholecalciferol in months 6 and 7) compared to the unsupplemented group, although the number of participants in this study was low (n=25 in each arm).…”

Section: Results Of the Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All deliveries occurred in the same month (June)At recruitment and at deliveryMean (SD) 25(OH)D in suppl. groupMean (SD) 25(OH)D in un-sup groupNot givenNot givenNo significant difference in BW between the 2 groups (p value not given)At recruitment54.9 (10.0)27.5 (10.0)Delivery64.9 (17.5)32.4 (20.0) Mallet, 1986 8 −3 (high)Rouen, France n=77, all white women3 arms: Randomised to either no supplement (n=29) or 1,000 IU vitamin D/day △ in last 3 months of pregnancy (n=21), or single oral dose of vitamin D △ 200,000 IU in 7 th month (n=27)Nil, but groups of similar maternal age, parity, calcium intake and frequency of outdoors outingsDuring labour (February and March)Overall mean not given According to group: Un-supplemented=9.4 (4.9) 1000 IU/day=25.3 (7.7) 200,000 IU=26.0 (6.4)3460 (70)1000 IU/day = 3370 (80) 200,000 IU = 3210 (90)No significant difference in BW between the 3 groups p value not given Marya, 1988 6 −2 (high)Rohtak, India n=200 womenRandomised to either no supplement (n=100) or oral 600,000 IU vitamin D3; 2 doses in 7 th and 8 th months gestation (n=100)Nil, but groups had similar maternal age, maternal height, maternal height, parity, haemoglobin, calcium intake and vitamin D intakeNot measuredNot measured directly, but mean daily vitamin D intake given as follows: Un-supplemented=35.71 (6.17) IU/day Supplemented group=35.01 (7.13) IU/day2800 (370)2990 (360)BW significantly higher in the supplemented group p<0.001 Kaur, 1991 98 −7 (high)Rohtak, India n=50 womenRandomised to either no supplement (n=25) or oral 60,000 IU vitamin D3; 2 doses in 6 th and 7 th month gestation (n=25)…”

Section: Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy: a systematic review

Harvey

Holroyd

Ntani

et al. 2014

Health Technology Assessment

261

235

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. ABSTRACT Background It is unclear whether the current evidence base allows definite conclusions to be made regarding the optimal maternal circulating concentration of 25(OH)-vitamin D during pregnancy, and how this might best be achieved. CRD42011001426. Aim/ Research Questions What are the clinical criteria for vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women?What adverse maternal and neonatal health outcomes are associated with low maternal circulating 25(OH)-vitamin D?Does maternal supplementation with vitamin D in pregnancy lead to an improvement in these outcomes (including assessment of compliance and effectiveness)?What is the optimal type (D2 or D3), dose, regimen and route for vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy?Is supplementation with vitamin D in pregnancy likely to be cost-effective? Methods We performed systematic review and where possible combined study results using meta-analysis to estimate the combined effect size. Major electronic databases were searched up to June 2012 covering both published and grey literature. Bibliographies of selected papers were hand-searched for additional references. Relevant authors were contacted for any unpublished findings and additional data if necessary. Inclusion and exclusion criteria Subjects Pregnant women or pregnant women and their offspring. Exposure Either assessment of vitamin D status (dietary intake, sunlight exposure, circulating 25(OH)-vitamin D concentration) or supplementation of participants with vitamin D or vitamin D containing food e.g. oily fish. Outcomes Offspring: Birth weight, birth length, head circumference, bone mass, anthropometry and body composition, risk of asthma and atopy, small for gestational dates, preterm birth, type 1 diabetes, low birth weight, serum calcium concentration, blood pressure and rickets. Mother: Preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, risk of caesarean section and bacterial vaginosis. Results 76 studies were included. There was considerable heterogeneity between the studies and for most outcomes there was conflicting evidence. The evidence base was insufficient to reliably answer question 1 in relation to biochemical or disease outcomes. For questions 2 and 3, modest positive relationships were identified between maternal 25(OH)-vitamin D and 1) offspring birth weight in meta-analysis of 3 observational studies using log-transformed 25(OH)-vitamin D concentrations after adjustment for potential confounding factors (pooled regression coefficient 5.63g/10% change maternal 25(OH)D, 95% CI 1.11,10.16), but not in those 4 studies using natural units, or across intervention studies; 2) offspring cord blood or postnatal calcium concentrations in a meta-analysis of 6 intervention studies (all found to be at high risk of bias; mean difference 0.05mmol/l, 95% CI 0.02, 0.05); and 3) offspring bone mass in observational studies judged to be of good quality, but which did not permit meta-analysis. The evidence base was insufficient to reliably answer questions 4 and 5. Limitations Study methodology varied widely in ...

show abstract

“…Marya RL et al [86] suggested that administration of Vitamin D in two large doses of 60,000 IU each in the 7th and 8th months of pregnancy in 20 women was more efficacious. Jasbinder Kaur et al [87] described the effect of administration of two pharmacological doses of Vitamin D (60,000 IU each) in 6th and 7th months of pregnancy. Compared to controls, the birth weight and weight of the placenta, its protein, DNA and RNA contents were significantly higher in the supplemented group.…”

Section: Clinical Evidence-indian Outlookmentioning

confidence: 99%