Evidence Hub

Vitamin D, bone mineral density and risk of fracture in people with intellectual disabilities

Frighi V, Morovat A, Andrews TM, Rana F, Stephenson MT, White SJ, Fower E, Roast J et al.

Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2019

51 participants · 20 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: People with intellectual disabilities (IDs) have very high rates of osteoporosis and fractures, to which their widespread vitamin D deficiency and other factors could contribute. We aimed to assess in people with IDs previously treated for vitamin D deficiency (1) long-term adherence to vitamin D supplementation and (2) bone mineral density (BMD), as an indicator for risk of fractures, according to vitamin D supplementation and other factors.

METHOD: We recorded height, weight, medical, pharmacological, dietary and lifestyle assessment. Blood sample were taken for vitamin D and related analytes. dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for BMD was performed.

RESULTS: Of 51 study participants (mean [standard deviation, SD] age 51.5 [13.6] years, 57% male), 41 (80.4%) were taking vitamin D and 10 were not. Mean [SD] serum vitamin D was 81.3 [21.3] vs. 25.2 [10.2] nmol/L (P < 0.0001), respectively. Thirty-six participants underwent a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan, which showed osteoporosis in 23.7% and osteopenia in 52.6%. Participants on vitamin D had higher BMD than those who were not, a statistically significant difference when confounders (lack of mobility and hypogonadism) were removed. BMD was significantly different according to mobility, particularly in wheelchair users, in whom hip BMD was 33% lower (P < 0.0001) than in participants with normal mobility. Participants still taking vitamin D showed a 6.1% increase in BMD at the spine (P = 0.003) after mean…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 51 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free