RESUMO
BACKGROUND/AIM: To optimize public health campaigns concerning UV exposure, it is important to characterize factors that influence UV-induced cutaneous vitamin D production. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the impact of different individual and environmental factors including exposed body surface area (BSA), UVB dose and vitamin D status, on serum 25(OH)D concentration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, and Meta-analysis of Observational studies in Epidemiology guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted (MEDLINE; 01/1960-07/2016) investigating the impact of these factors on vitamin D status after artificial UV exposure as main outcome measure. Summary mean differences [and 95% confidence interval (CI)] were derived from random-effects meta-analysis to account for possible heterogeneity across studies. Meta-regression was conducted to account for impact of UVB dose, baseline 25(OH)D level and BSA. RESULTS: We identified 15 studies, with an estimated mean 25(OH)D rise per standard erythema dose (SED) of 0.19 nmol/l (95% CI 0.11-0.26 nmol/l). Results from meta-regression suggest a significant impact of UV dose and baseline 25(OH)D concentration on serum 25(OH)D level (p<0.01). Single UVB doses between 0.75 and 3 SED resulted in the highest rise of serum 25(OH)D per dose unit. BSA exposed had a smaller, non-proportional, not significant impact. Partial BSA exposure resulted in relatively higher rise compared to whole-body exposure (e.g. exposure of face and hands caused an 8-fold higher rise of serum 25(OH)D concentration/SED/1% BSA compared to whole-body exposure). Our findings support previous reports, estimating that the half-life of serum 25(OH)D varies depending on different factors. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that partial BSA exposure (e.g. 10%) with moderate UV doses (e.g. 1 SED) is effective in generating or maintaining a healthy vitamin D status. However, due to limitations that include possible confounding factors such as skin type, which could not be considered, these findings should be interpreted with caution.
