Suppr超能文献

英国初级保健中未经许可的维生素 D 制剂的质量和使用情况:国家处方数据和实验室分析的回顾性审查。

Quality and use of unlicensed vitamin D preparations in primary care in England: Retrospective review of national prescription data and laboratory analysis.

机构信息

Pharmacy Department, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Evelina London Children's Hospital, London, UK.

Institute of Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London, London, UK.

出版信息

Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021 Mar;87(3):1338-1346. doi: 10.1111/bcp.14521. Epub 2020 Aug 31.

Abstract

AIM

To evaluate the type (licensed vs unlicensed) and cost of preparations used to fulfil vitamin D prescriptions in England over time, and to compare measured vitamin D content of selected vitamin D preparations against labelled claim.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of vitamin D prescription data in primary care in England (2008-2018). Laboratory analysis of 13 selected vitamin D preparations.

RESULTS

Alongside a rise in the number of oral licensed colecalciferol preparations from 0 to 27 between 2012 and 2018, the proportion of vitamin D prescriptions in which licensed vitamin D preparations were supplied increased from 11.8 to 54.2%. However, the use of unlicensed food supplements (dose strength 400-50 000 IU) remained high, accounting for 39.7% of vitamin D prescriptions in 2018. The two licensed preparations showed mean (±SD) vitamin D content of 90.9 ± 0.7% and 90.5 ± 3.9% of the labelled claimed amount, meeting the British Pharmacopeia specification for licensed medicines (90-125% of labelled claim). The 11 food supplements showed vitamin D content ranging from 41.2 ± 10.6% to 165.3 ± 17.8% of the labelled claim, with eight of the preparations failing to comply with the food supplement specification (80-150% of labelled claim).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increasing availability of quality assured licensed preparations, food supplements continued to be used interchangeably with licensed preparations to fulfil vitamin D prescriptions. Food supplements, manufactured under less stringent quality standards, showed wide variations between measured and declared vitamin D content, which could lead to the risk of under- and over-dosing.

摘要

目的

评估在英格兰,随着时间的推移,用于满足维生素 D 处方的制剂类型(许可和非许可)和成本,并比较选定的维生素 D 制剂的实测维生素 D 含量与标签声称。

方法

对英格兰初级保健中维生素 D 处方数据(2008-2018 年)进行回顾性分析。对 13 种选定的维生素 D 制剂进行实验室分析。

结果

2012 年至 2018 年间,口服许可的胆钙化醇制剂数量从 0 增加到 27,与此同时,许可的维生素 D 制剂供应的维生素 D 处方比例从 11.8%增加到 54.2%。然而,未许可的食品补充剂(剂量强度 400-50000 IU)的使用仍然很高,占 2018 年维生素 D 处方的 39.7%。两种许可制剂的实测维生素 D 含量分别为标签声称量的 90.9±0.7%和 90.5±3.9%,符合英国药典对许可药物的规格(90-125%的标签声称)。11 种食品补充剂的实测维生素 D 含量范围为标签声称量的 41.2±10.6%至 165.3±17.8%,其中 8 种制剂不符合食品补充剂规格(80-150%的标签声称)。

结论

尽管质量保证的许可制剂的供应不断增加,但食品补充剂仍与许可制剂交替使用以满足维生素 D 处方。在较低的质量标准下生产的食品补充剂,实测和声明的维生素 D 含量之间存在很大差异,这可能导致剂量不足和过量的风险。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验