Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Comparative effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation via buccal spray versus oral supplements on 25(OH)D concentrations: a systematic review

  • Lucy Pritchard (a1), Mary Hickson (a2) and Stephen Lewis (a3)

Abstract

Vitamin D (vitD) deficiency is the most common nutritional deficiency worldwide. Most patients are treated with oral vitD capsules (either vitD2 or vitD3). A few studies have reported equal efficacy of buccal spray vitD. This is a new formulation that is absorbed via the oral mucosa into the systemic circulation, bypassing the gastrointestinal route. The main objective of this systematic review was to identify RCT evidence for the comparative effectiveness of buccal spray versus oral vitD on serum 25-hydroxyvitaminD [25-OHD] concentrations and any adverse effects of buccal spray vitD. We have published an a priori protocol using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology (PROSPERO CRD42018118580). A three-step search strategy to identify RCTs was conducted, which reported serum 25-OHD concentrations from five databases from 2008–2018. Retrieved abstracts were screened; included papers imported into JBI SUMARI and assessed for study quality (GRADE) by two authors. Meta-analysis was planned. Three RCTs met our inclusion criteria. Due to heterogeneity of studies, meta-analysis was not possible. In a RCT crossover study, mean serum 25-OHD concentrations were significantly higher in patients with malabsorption syndrome (n = 20) on 1000IU buccal spray + 117.8%(10.46, 95%CI6.89,14.03ng/ml) vs.1000IU oral vitD3 + 36.02%(3.96, 95%CI2.37, 5.56ng/ml) at 30days (p < 0.0001). Mean serum 25-OHD were also significantly higher in healthy adults (n = 20) on buccal spray + 42.99%(7.995, 95%CI6.86,9.13ng/ml)vs.oral vitD3 + 21.72%(4.06, 95%CI3.41,4.71ng/ml) at 30days (p < 0.0001). In another RCT crossover study, ANCOVA revealed no significant difference in the mean and SD change from baseline total 25-OHD concentrations in adults (n = 22) on 3000IU buccal spray vs. 3000IU oral vitD3 + 44%,26.15 (SD17.85) vs. + 51%,30.38 (SD17.91)nmol/l, respectively;F = 1.044, adjusted r20.493,p = 0.313 at 4 weeks. In a RCT, 800IU buccal spray was equally effective as 750IU oral vitD3 in children with neurodisabilities(n = 24) at 3 months. Both groups had a significant increase in 25-OHD; 11.5 ng/ml(median8–19) to 26.5(13.6–39)ng/ml and 15.5ng/ml(8–20) to 34.5(22–49)ng/ml, respectively (z = 150;p < 0.0001). The overall certainty of evidence was very low to moderate. No adverse effects were reported. The evidence from these studies suggests that 800IU-3000IU doses of buccal spray vitD3 given daily may be an effective alternative as oral vitD3 in obtaining short-term haematological responses in serum 25-OHD concentrations. Buccal spray vitD3 may be a useful alternative for patients with intestinal malabsorption or dysphagia. Future research should compare buccal spray VD3 to intramuscular injections and confirm these findings in well-designed trials.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Comparative effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation via buccal spray versus oral supplements on 25(OH)D concentrations: a systematic review
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Comparative effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation via buccal spray versus oral supplements on 25(OH)D concentrations: a systematic review
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Comparative effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation via buccal spray versus oral supplements on 25(OH)D concentrations: a systematic review
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Comparative effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation via buccal spray versus oral supplements on 25(OH)D concentrations: a systematic review

  • Lucy Pritchard (a1), Mary Hickson (a2) and Stephen Lewis (a3)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.