Vitamin D 25-OH level | Arthritis Information

I have a positive RF of 320 IU/ml with an extremely elevated anti-ccp. Problem is my joint pain does not include---heat, redness, or swelling. Yet I have severe joint pain The Dr. Recentley did a Vit D 25-OH level and my value was 34 (normal 20-100). Has anyone else had this test done.

No Sherrip, I can't say I have ever heard of it. I am sure someone will be able to shed light on it for you, regards Janie.

Sheripp,

I didn't have that test done, but I wanted to tell you that I also had a high RF of 330 and an Anti-CCP of 238. For the first year, I had severe joint pain without redness, swelling, or heat. After the first year, I occasionally experience swelling, but it definitely is NOT my norm.

Sounds familiar, huh?

I have my vitamin D levels tested regularly, about every couple of months.
Most patients with RA suffer from low levels of vitamin D.

Review finds current vitamin D recommendations insufficient to achieve healthy blood levels

A review published in the July, 2006 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which sought to determine the optimal serum levels of the major circulating form of vitamin D [25(OH)D] for several health outcomes concluded that it would be necessary to consume at least 1000 international units of vitamin D per day to elevate blood serum levels in half the adult population to 75 nanomoles per liter, the minimum level that the researchers found to be advantageous for helping to preserve normal bone mineral density and lower extremity function, and aiding in the prevention of periodontal disease, falls, fractures, and colorectal cancer. Although there is evidence for vitamin D in preventing other diseases such as multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, insulin resistance, osteoarthritis, hypertension, and cancers other than colorectal cancer, the authors did not include these diseases in the current review.

H. A. Bischoff-Ferrari of Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland, along with colleagues at Harvard and Tufts University evaluated clinical trials and meta-analyses involving vitamin D and each of the selected health outcomes. They concluded that the most desirable serum levels of vitamin D began at 75 nanomoles per liter (30 nanograms per milliliter), and optimal levels are between 90 and 100 nanomoles per liter. These levels cannot be reached by most individuals with the current recommended intakes of 200 international units per day for younger adults and 600 international units per day for older adults. To bring vitamin D concentrations in at least 50 percent of the population up to optimal levels, the authors recommend at least 1000 IU vitamin D per day, and they remark that 2000 IU per day may be a safe recommended daily allowance.

"On the basis of this review, we suggest that, for bone health in younger adults and all outcomes in older adults, including antifracture efficacy, lower-extremity strength, dental health, and colorectal cancer prevention, an increase in the current recommended intake of vitamin D may be warranted,” the authors conclude. “Given the low cost, the safety, and the demonstrated benefit of higher 25(OH)D concentrations, vitamin D supplementation should become a public health priority to combat these common and costly chronic diseases."

Sarah

Sheri -

I've had the 4 tests done but have only seen the results on one (low). The others came in just before we moved so are buried somewhere in 6 boxes of paperwork I brought with me. :-)

There is a controversy on D. The Marshall Protocol people are totally anti-D and believe the only way to cure ourselves of these diseases are to totally avoid all forms of D including sunlight. You can post your question on www.sarcinfo.com (try .org if that doesn't work) and they'll tell you what they think.

The other side of the equation seems to be the www.cpnhelp.org people that believe massive doses of D is the only way to beat these diseases. You might post there and get a totally different answer.

Do not tell the one group the others resonse - they are totally ANTI the other group and are rapid about it. But both have interesting research.

Clarky -

Can you forward me any of the studies you mentioned? I'd love to read it. I'm at the point where I have to pick one of the other protocols and keep feeling making the wrong decision will seriously cost me. Anything I can read will help.

Pip

I'm having some computer issues this morning. Here's a couple of the studies concerning vitamin D. It will give you a starting point. You might want to check out medline too

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/3/362

http://www.nutritionhealthinfo.com/vitamins/vitamins_0236_00 1.pdf

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/128/1/68?ijkey= 24cedb60404e9ba0d185755c8cb902ea3125d5aa&keytype2=tf_ipsecsh a

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/516238_print

Sarah

Thanks Sarah -

Appreciate it!

Pip