Abstract

Background/Aims: Vitamin D deficiency is common in children with neurodisabilities. Oral vitamin D<sub>3</sub> may not be absorbed appropriately due to dysphagia and tube feeding. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy of vitamin D<sub>3</sub> buccal spray with that of oral drops. Methods: Twenty-four children with neurodisabilities (5–17 years) and vitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D ≤20 ng/mL) were randomized to receive vitamin D<sub>3</sub> buccal spray 800 IU/daily (n = 12) or oral drops 750 IU/daily (n = 12) for 3 months during winter. Results: Both groups had a significant increase in 25(OH)D (z = 150; p < 0.0001). The differences between baseline and final parathyroid hormone measurements did not reach significance in both groups. Markers of bone formation and resorption did not change significantly in both groups. The satisfaction with the formulation was significantly higher in the patients using spray. Conclusion: Vitamin D<sub>3</sub> supplementation with buccal spray and oral drops are equally effective in short-term treatment of vitamin D deficiency in children with neurodisabilities. Buccal spray may be more acceptable by the patients.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call