VDC test kit slider
VDC test kit slider
sperti logo 1
Text size A A A
High contrast on off

Information on the latest vitamin D news and research.

Find out more information on deficiency, supplementation, sun exposure, and how vitamin D relates to your health.

New trial reports no effect of vitamin D on the recurrence of a common female infection

A new randomized controlled trial published in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that high-dose vitamin D supplementation did not reduce the recurrence of bacterial vaginosis.

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is the most common vaginal infection for women of reproductive age, affecting nearly 30% of women in the United States.

BV occurs when the natural balance of vaginal bacteria is disturbed by an overgrowth of one type of bacteria. Doctors do not know yet how BV develops, but there are known risk factors, such as unprotected sexual intercourse. However, BV is not considered a sexually transmitted infection (STI).

You need to be logged in to read the rest of this post. Please log in or become a member.

  About: Amber Tovey

Amber is the Program Manager for the Vitamin D Council. Her responsibilities include writing articles, editing, fundraising and brainstorming ways for the VDC to grow. Outside of work, she loves to enjoy the beautiful hills, beaches and sunshine in the Central Coast of California.

2 Responses to New trial reports no effect of vitamin D on the recurrence of a common female infection

  1. brandonr@tds.net says:

    Was the 50,000 Iu D2 or D3? If D3, the dosing was not high enough or frequent enough. The levels obtained were not high enough to make a difference. Given the blood levels at the beginning of the study, the D3 participants should have received at least 10,000 Iu/day and the resulting levels should have been over 50 ng/ml. There would have been a dramatic reduction in BV, even after only one year, if the study were done with these goals. Almost all Vit D studies published use far too conservative dosing.

  2. Amber Tovey says:

    Hi brandonr@tds.net,

    It was vitamin D3. I completely agree that the participants should have received a more consistent dosage. The participants should have been at least receiving weekly doses of vitamin D3, rather than receiving vitamin D at four week intervals (which was the case from weeks 8 to 24).