Vitamin D deficiency - treatment dosage?

[mobyjoby]

Thanks for all the replies everyone.
Ny daughter was ill last week so only got to the doctors today.
The protocol they use refers to ng/ml but my actual measurement was 15 nmol/L! she didn't even realise that they were treating me in the 10-20 ng/ml category when in reality it looks like I fall in the <10ng/ml category. However the treatment levels change at >15ng/ml and they were using the less than 15 protocol on me as they considered me borderline so they would have given me the same treatment anyway. Its all abit haphazard isn't it?!?!
I am using Rics conversion of 1ng/ml = 2.5 nmol/L so presuming my level is about 6!
Does anyone have links to respected sources about the more recent consensus on "normal" levels that suggest 125-250 rather than 50-150. Is there any information to suggest UK doctors may accept these levels?
Thanks
Jo
Jo

 

[rlc]

Hi mobyjoby, glad you found out what measurement your test result was in, it is very low, your maths is right your level is 6ng/ml, the good thing about being so low is that it increases the possibility that vitamin D is the sole cause of all your problems and it is very treatable.

The immediate aim should be to raise your levels above those were you have a chance of getting osteoporosis as quickly as possible, which the treatment your doctor is recommending should do.

To the best of my knowledge there has been no consensus reached on using the new reference range in the UK, and the majority of doctors are oblivious to it.
However there is a general consensus that levels between 50-75nmol/L are defined as insufficient see http://www.uptodate.com/contents/patient-information-vitamin-d-deficiency-beyond-the-basics

So you should have no trouble getting your doctor to accept below 75 not 50nmol/L as being too little.

At the moment the like of the NHS are not doing anything about the reference ranges, but individual doctors are reading the new information and acting accordingly. The thing is that there is nothing at all dangerous in having a level above 125nmol/L it is still considered completely safe even by the old reference range 50-150nmol/L, so there is nothing to stop a doctor lifting levels to the higher end of the old reference range.

Your first aim should be to get above 75nmol/L first, this may fix all your symptoms, some people need more, everyone is different, the problem with levels below 125nmol/l is that there are no stores of vitamin D ,so levels decline rapidly without sun exposure and you can quickly get in trouble again.

If you have a doctor who is open to reading new research they may be willing to read the information on the vitamin D council site, it is all based on real research so they shouldnt have a problem with it, and like I say the new research is only recommending being at the top end of the old reference range not the bottom, so there are no risks involved.

Hope treatment makes you better quickly,

All the best

 

[sarah darwins]

A really good article is, The use of vitamin D in clinical practice, it is co written by Dr Hollis who is the world expert on vitamin D which you can read here http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/13/1/6.pdf

That link seems to be defunct, but the article can instead be found here: http://www.ei-resource.org/research/autism-research/use-of-vitamin-d-in-clinical-practice/