A Comparison and Safety Evaluation of Micellar versus Standard Vitamin D3 Oral Supplementation in a Randomized, Double-Blind Human Pilot Study.

The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate and compare bioavailability and safety of two Vitamin D3 formulations (softgels) in healthy adults, at single daily doses of 1000 and 2500 IU, over a 60-day period. A total of 69 participants were initially screened for eligibility in a double-blind randomized study with a four-arm parallel design; 35 participants were randomized to treatment groups: (1) standard Vitamin D3 1000 IU (STD1000), (2) micellar Vitamin D3 1000 IU (LMD1000), (3) standard Vitamin D3 2500 IU (STD2500), and (4) micellar Vitamin D3 2500 IU (LMD2500). Serum Vitamin D concentrations were determined through calcifediol [25(OH)D] at baseline (=before treatment), at day 5, 10, and 15 (=during treatment), at day 30 (=end of treatment), and at day 45 and 60 (=during follow-up/post treatment). Safety markers and minerals were evaluated at baseline and at day 30 and day 60. The pharmacokinetic parameters with respect to iAUC were found to be significantly different between LMD1000 vs. STD1000: iAUC(5-60): 992 ± 260 vs. 177 ± 140 nmol day/L; p < 0.05, suggesting up to 6 times higher Vitamin D3 absorption of LMD when measured incrementally. During follow-up, participants in the LMD1000 treatment group showed approx. 7 times higher Vitamin D3 concentrations than the STD1000 group (iAUC(30-60): 680 ± 190 vs. 104 ± 91 nmol day/L; p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found between the pharmacokinetics of the higher dosing groups STD2500 and LMD2500. No significant changes in serum 1,25(OH)2D concentrations or other biochemical safety markers were detected at day 60; no excess risks of hypercalcemia (i.e., total serum calcium > 2.63 mmol/L) or other adverse events were identified. LMD, a micellar delivery vehicle for microencapsulating Vitamin D3 (LipoMicel®), proved to be safe and only showed superior bioavailability when compared to standard Vitamin D at the lower dose of 1000 IU. This study has clinical trial registration: NCT05209425.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial to evaluate the effect of EstroSense® on 2-hydroxyestrone:16α-hydroxyestrone ratio in premenopausal women.

OBJECTIVES: Some estrogen metabolites are associated with increased breast cancer risk, while others are protective. Research efforts have focused on modifiable factors, including bioactive compounds found in food or supplements, promoting estrogen profiles with anti-cancer properties. EstroSense® is a nutraceutical product with bioactive compounds, including Indole-3-carbinol and green-tea catechins, which may favourably affect estrogen profiles. This study was conducted to determine if EstroSense use, compared to placebo, promotes a higher urinary 2-hydroxyestrone:16α-hydroxyestrone ratio (2-OHE1:16α-OHE1), a biomarker associated with a lowered risk of breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 148 premenopausal women were recruited from British Columbia, Canada to participate in a randomized, double-blind, cross-over, multicentre, placebo-controlled study in which women were randomized to a treatment sequence that consisted of either EstroSense®, followed by placebo or vice-versa. The women were instructed to consume three capsules per day of EstroSense® or the placebo for three menstrual cycles (∼12 weeks). The primary outcome was the measurement of 2-OHE1:16α-OHE1 in casual samples at baseline and after each treatment phase. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of intervention, the mean (95% CI) urinary 2-OHE1:16α-OHE1 was 4.55 (2.69, 6.42) (p<0.001) higher following EstroSense than placebo adjusted for baseline values. CONCLUSIONS: EstroSense use led to markedly higher urinary 2-OHE1:16α-OHE1 than the placebo, a biomarker associated with a lower risk of breast cancer. REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02385916).