title: 25-Hydroxyvitamin-D3 levels are positively related to subsequent cortical bone development in childhood: findings from a large prospective cohort study.
abstract: In exploring relationships between vitamin D status in childhood and cortical bone, little relationship was observed with plasma concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin-D(2) [25(OH)D(2)], whereas 25-hydroxyvitamin-D(3) [25(OH)D(3)] was positively related to cortical bone mineral content (BMC(C)) and cortical thickness, suggesting D(3) exerts a beneficial effect on cortical bone development in contrast to D(2).
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  The study is aimed to determine whether vitamin D status in childhood is related to cortical bone development by examining prospective relationships between plasma concentrations of 25(OH)D(2) and 25(OH)D(3) at 7.6, 9.9 or 11.8 years and peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) measurements of the mid-tibia at age 15.5 years, in children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children.
  
  
  METHODS
  Relationships between vitamin D status and pQCT outcomes were analysed by bootstrap linear regression, adjusted for age, sex, body composition, socioeconomic position and physical activity, in 2,247 subjects in whom all covariates were available. 25(OH)D(3) was also adjusted for season and 25(OH)D(2), and 25(OH)D(2) for 25(OH)D(3).
  
  
  RESULTS
  25(OH)D(3) was positively related to BMC(C) [0.066(0.009,0.122), P = 0.02], whereas no association was seen with 25(OH)D(2) [-0.008(-0.044,0.027), P = 0.7] [beta (with 95% CI) represents SD changes per doubling of vitamin D], P = 0.03 for difference in associations of 25(OH)D(2) and 25(OH)D(3) with BMC(C). There were also differences in associations with cortical geometry, since 25(OH)D(3) was positively related to cortical thickness [0.11(0.04, 0.19), P = 0.002], whereas no association was seen with 25(OH)D(2) [-0.04(-0.08,0.009), P = 0.1], P = 0.0005 for difference. These relationships translated into differences in biomechanical strength as reflected by buckling ratio, which was positively related to 25(OH)D(2) [0.06(0.01,0.11), P = 0.02] indicating less resistance to buckling, but inversely related to 25(OH)D(3) [-0.1(-0.19,-0.02), P = 0.03], P = 0.001 for difference.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In contrast to 25(OH)D(2), 25(OH)D(3) was positively related to subsequent cortical bone mass and predicted strength. In vitamin D-deficient children in whom supplementation is being considered, our results suggest that D(3) should be used in preference to D(2).
authors.affiliation: Musculoskeletal Research Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. adrian.sayers@bristol.ac.uk
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Sayers
authors.forename: W D
authors.initials: WD
authors.lastname: Fraser
authors.forename: D A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Lawlor
authors.forename: J H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Tobias
mesh_terms: D015652:25-Hydroxyvitamin D 2 / Q000097:blood*; D000293:Adolescent; D015519:Bone Density / Q000502:physiology*; D001846:Bone Development / Q000502:physiology*; D002112:Calcifediol / Q000097:blood*; D002648:Child; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D004739:England; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013977:Tibia / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods
chemical_list: D015652:25-Hydroxyvitamin D 2; D002112:Calcifediol
references.citation: Nutr Rev. 2008 Oct;66(10 Suppl 2):S153-64
references.pmid: 18844843
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Jan;88(1):157-61
references.pmid: 12519845
references.citation: J Bone Miner Res. 2007 Nov;22(11):1781-90
references.pmid: 17638578
references.citation: Lancet. 2006 Jan 7;367(9504):36-43
references.pmid: 16399151
references.citation: J Am Coll Nutr. 2007 Oct;26(5):462-70
references.pmid: 17914135
references.citation: J Youth Adolesc. 1980 Jun;9(3):271-80
references.pmid: 24318082
references.citation: Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Dec;76(6):1446-53
references.pmid: 12450915
references.citation: Early Hum Dev. 2000 Nov;60(1):35-42
references.pmid: 11054582
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Oct;95(10):4643-51
references.pmid: 20631020
references.citation: J Bone Miner Res. 2005 Dec;20(12):2082-9
references.pmid: 16294261
references.citation: J Bone Miner Res. 2008 Dec;23(12):1892-904
references.pmid: 18684092
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Feb;91(2):405-12
references.pmid: 16278262
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Mar;94(3):765-71
references.pmid: 19116232
references.citation: Osteoporos Int. 2011 Feb;22(2):489-98
references.pmid: 20544178
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Mar;89(3):1196-9
references.pmid: 15001609
references.citation: J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 Jun;105(6):971-4
references.pmid: 15942551
references.citation: Br J Sports Med. 2005 Aug;39(8):521-6
references.pmid: 16046335
references.citation: J Bone Miner Res. 2009 Apr;24(4):663-8
references.pmid: 19049331
references.citation: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2001 Jan;15(1):74-87
references.pmid: 11237119
references.citation: Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006 Dec;60(12):1391-9
references.pmid: 16804555
references.citation: Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3):485-92
references.pmid: 12936933
references.citation: Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Oct;80(4):1019-23
references.pmid: 15447914
references.citation: J Bone Miner Res. 2007 Dec;22 Suppl 2:V45-9
references.pmid: 18290721
references.citation: Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Oct;84(4):694-7
references.pmid: 17023693
references.citation: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2005 Mar;62(3):265-81
references.pmid: 15730407
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 06;(10):CD006944
references.pmid: 20927753
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Feb;95(2):699-706
references.pmid: 20008022
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Aug;93(8):3015-20
references.pmid: 18492750
references.citation: J Bone Miner Res. 2006 Jun;21(6):836-44
references.pmid: 16753014
references.citation: J Bone Miner Res. 2007 Jan;22(1):101-9
references.pmid: 17014381