Comparison of Absorption of Vitamin D in Cystic Fibrosis

November 19, 2015 updated by: Vin Tangpricha, MD, PH.D, Emory University

Vehicles for the Absorption of Vitamin D in Cystic Fibrosis: Comparison of Powder vs Oil

The investigators predict that a powder pill form of vitamin D will be more effectively absorbed than an oil form of vitamin D in people diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

The purpose of this study is to see how well two different forms of vitamin D work in Cystic Fibrosis (CF). Patients with Cystic Fibrosis have a hard time absorbing certain foods and often have low vitamin D levels. Studies show that vitamin D may help fight infections common in Cystic Fibrosis. The investigators would like to see if a powder pill form of vitamin D will work better than a pill mixed with oil. Each person will randomly receive either a powder pill or an oil based pill. Blood will be tested while during a 3-4 day hospital stay. The investigators plan to enroll no more than 24 patients with CF from Emory University Hospital for this study.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
17

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Phase 4

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Georgia
      • Atlanta, Georgia, United States, 30322
        • Emory University Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 59 years (Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Adult CF patients (age >18 years
  • Able to tolerate oral medication
  • Expected to survive the duration of the study

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Inability to obtain or declined informed consent from the subject and/or legally authorized representative
  • History of disorders associated with hypercalcemia
  • Current hypercalcemia (albumin-corrected serum calcium >10.8 mg/dL or ionized calcium >5.2 mg/dL)
  • Chronic kidney disease worse than stage III (<60 ml/min), 7) Forced Expiratory Volume (FEV1)% predicted <20%
  • Current significant hepatic dysfunction total bilirubin > 2.5 mg/dL with direct bilirubin > 1.0 mg/dL
  • Current use of cytotoxic or immunosuppressive drugs
  • History of AIDS or illicit drug abuse
  • too ill to participate in study based on investigator's or study team's opinion
  • current enrollment in another intervention trial

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Prevention
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Active Comparator: 100,000 IU D-50 powder
Vitamin D oil vs powder. 100,000 IU powder form of vitamin D, assessment of D3 absorption. One Dose of vitamin D powder format administered. Absorption rate monitored over 72 hour period
Dietary supplement: Vitamin D Powder
Patients will be randomly assigned to a powder supplement of 100,000 IU vitamin D3. Randomization will be in blocks of 4 (meaning for every 4 subjects there will be 2 vitamin D and 2 placebo treated patients). Blood will be drawn by IV catheter at baseline, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after vitamin D3 dosing
Other Names:
  • D3-50 Cholecalciferol
Active Comparator: 100,000 IU Maximum D3 in oil
Vitamin D oil vs powder. One Dose of 100,000 IU vitamin D oil format administered. Absorption rate monitored over 72 hour period
Dietary supplement: Vitamin D Oil
Patients will be randomly assigned to an oil based supplement of 100,000 IU vitamin D3. Randomization will be in blocks of 4 (meaning for every 4 subjects there will be 2 vitamin D and 2 placebo treated patients). Blood will be drawn by IV catheter at baseline, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after vitamin D3 dosing
Other Names:
  • Maximum D3

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Rate of Absorption of vitamin D3 to blood
Time Frame: 72 hours
rates of absorption of D3 will be compared for either an oil based or powder form pill OVER 72 HOURS.
72 hours

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Emory University

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Vin Tangpricha, MD PhD, Emory University

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
October 1, 2013

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
March 1, 2015

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
October 1, 2015

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
June 12, 2013

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
June 14, 2013

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
June 19, 2013

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
November 20, 2015

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
November 19, 2015

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
November 1, 2015

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • IRB00066261
  • Hermes vitamin D (Other Identifier: Tangpricha)

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings