New UK Proposed NICE guidelines for Vitamin D

[waveylines]

The Vitamin D Council has an article announcing that NICE is in the process of bringing out new guidelines for the treatment of vitamin D deficiency. The proposal is rather wordy but it seems they are keen to address the wide deficiency that commonly exists in the UK. In particular NICE made reference to a guide from the Osteoporosis Society's which I found made very interesting reading and I thought I would find it useful as a resource when discussing needs with my GP. Links to all three articles below. See what you think!

Vitamin D Council News-

vitamindcouncil.org/vitamin...

new proposed NICE guidelines:

nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/...

Osteoporosis Guidelines for Vitamin D:-

nos.org.uk/document.doc?id=...

[Clutter]

Thank you very much for posting this, Wavylines

[Hidden]

Thank you, interesting but as you say very wordy! I put my hands up and admit to skim reading it, seems to say an awful lot of nothing. Am I right in thinking NICE are talking about vit D deficiency as being below 25nmol/l, and the NOS as below 30nmol/l? It's a bit pitiful, isn't it.

[waveylines in reply to Hidden]

Hi Hamster -my understanding is that they are aiming for us all to be at 50nmol for good health. Under 25mnol is considered deficient by NICE -no change there to current guidelines. Neither is their a change in dosage at 400iu per day. However they also say there is no risk in taking up to 3000iu perday which is a change and actually say that some people may warrant this.....

And at least they recognise that diet won't correct it!

oh dear none of my attempts to reply directly have been applied -they are listed at the bottom of the post....shame!

[BeansMummy in reply to waveylines]

Your comment about recognising that diet won't correct vitamin D deficiency really made me chuckle - my endo, with advice from her professor, has put in writing that my severe vitamin D deficiency is diet-related. I am impressed that they both reached this conclusion without actually asking me anything whatsoever about my diet!

[waveylines in reply to BeansMummy]

Oh my....BeansMummy....seems they need to read the new guidelines then!! Their faces may change a hue of colour when they do!

Did they suggest which foods you should be eating more off that you aren't eating that they don't know cos they didn't ask you? Hope you are prepared to eat a ton of eggs and salmon!!

[BeansMummy in reply to waveylines]

I already told the endocrinologist that it wasn't acceptable to "diagnose" bad diet without actually asking me anything about what I eat. She reiterated that her professor felt that it was my diet (and no, I haven't spoken to him either). There was still no discussion about what I eat, or what I should be eating. I shall ask for a diet plan on my next visit

Pointing out that my blood tests showed I was deficient or low in range for B12, D, iron and just about everything else would lead most people to consider whether absorption was an issue for me. Apparently not. Lucky I have a vague sense of humour sometimes.

[Hidden]

Perhaps someone (at last) has read the recommendation from the Chief medical officer!

gov.uk/government/publicati...

Thanks wavy - I've left quite a few copies in strategic places of that Nos doc (Osteoporosis & Vitamin D)

[silverfox7 in reply to Hidden]

Just read your link 2012! Shutting the stable door when the horse has bolted comes to mind! But as usual with these things it takes a while to filter through. The converse of this when I gave my previous GP links to research was that they are out of date! Just can't win can you!

[waveylines in reply to Hidden]

Yeah they have spare-ribs -NICE refer to it in the proposed guidelines

[waveylines]

Yes I think the Osteoporosis doc is the one to refer to -it is very clear and after all NICE have referenced it too! I also think it is interesting that they are really applying this to women.....so maybe they really are hoping that us women will get less osteoporosis when we get older as perhaps it will offset our drop in hormones...... that would be good if it is true as my family are riddled with it!!!

[susymac]

"The economic model found that it is cost saving to give everyone in each group a daily vitamin D supplement, rather than testing them all and supplementing only those who are deficient. It was assumed that the cost of a test is fixed at £16.50"

I though Vit D was one that you shouldnt take if you didnt need it as it can do more harm than good. So by giving it to everyone in the at risk catagories they will be doing damage to people who dont need it just to save £16.50. Typical money before health attitude yet again

On another note my vit D levels have now dropped to 16, not heard back if they are planning on doing anything about it or just expecting me to fix it myself, like everything else, this has been interesting reading though, Thank you

[waveylines in reply to susymac]

Glad it is helpful Susymac -hopefully it gives you ammunition to get your GP to prescribe supplementation of D3 -16 -is way too low!

[carolr]

Funny old stuff low vit D is a sign

of immune deficiency disease.

I was tested a few years ago by an endo in London.

And found to be low. He just told me to go to Holland and Barrett.

After one months I asked my GP if he would re test he refused as he said it was an expensive test.

The endo said I was quite mad...

I've also read it can suppress the immune system as well. The fact that it's low does not necessarily

mean the systems low just your utilising it.

Very hard to know what to do?

They just like to give you the label

mentally ill. Cause they can't be bothered.

[waveylines]

Completely understand :Londonimum. I follow The Vitamin D Council guidelines which are also very good. I do believe in periodic testing of vitamin D though as i have found 5000iu per day too high for my needs despite what is said on this site. I cannot tolerate any sun -so i was surprised as my reading was way above what this site recommends -so what harm does an annual check do? And it is cheap to test. in comparison to what the medics will have to give you if your levels are not kept high enough.

vitamindcouncil.org/about-v...

[waveylines in reply to waveylines]

Actually have just checked my blood test results against the vitamin D Council and now realise that I need to convert the units that NHS test came back into the the vitamin D Councils to compare. Now I have done this and re-checked -it is perfect 70.1!!! Grrr. haven't taken them for a month as I thought I was over -and the GP said I was.....last few days i have had joint pain in my hps -which was an old sign that i was deficient! So back on the vits! So much for the GP's interpretation....am afraid....lol

[Hidden in reply to waveylines]

Yes the different units are confusing - it's usually nmol/L in the UK

vitamindtest.org.uk/vitamin...

Whereas it's mostly ng/ml in USA / Canada (times ng/ml x 2.5 to get nmol/L)

"The Vitamin D Council suggests that a level of 50 ng/ml is the ideal level to aim for. This is why the Council recommends that adults take 5,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplement in order to reach and stay at this level."

50 ng/ml equates to (about) 125 nmol/L - but everyone's needs are different of course.

I feel best when it's over 100 nmol/L (some folk get to over 250 without adverse effects but regular testing is recommended)

good informative booklet here (thanks Redapple)

vitamindcouncil.org/wp-cont...

J

[waveylines in reply to Hidden]

Thanks spareribs -I seem good on 175nmol/L which is 70ng/ml using 5000iu per day of D3. My link also from the vitamin D council says 40-80ng/ml is described as 'sufficient' USA Endocrine Society says 30-100ng/ml is sufficient....so there seems a rather broad band of 'sufficient'!!!

vitamindcouncil.org/about-v...

[topaz1]

Very interesting reading all this as I am awaiting my Vit D test results. Now I know what to look for and what to ask for. Thank you all