Search
Close
Search
Advanced Search
Search Menu
AI Discovery Assistant

Extract

To the Editors:

We thank Sosa‐Henríquez and colleagues for the interest in our double‐blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter superiority clinical trial, to assess the efficacy and safety of calcifediol in the correction and maintenance of 25(OH)D levels in postmenopausal women when compared with the approved calcifediol regimen (at the time of the study's approval) and with the cholecalciferol treatment recommended by clinical guidelines.

The three concerns raised about the study in the Letter to the Editor have been properly and thoroughly addressed in the paper. However, they are explained in detail below, dispelling any doubts and confirming the study's conclusions.

The first concern raised by Sosa‐Henríquez and colleagues is that “the results cannot be extrapolated to all postmenopausal women, as the women studied were postmenopausal with hypovitaminosis or vitamin D deficiency.” Titles for papers must be concise while also reflecting the findings of the research. Furthermore, the population in which the results were observed is clearly reflected in the paper, stating verbatim: “In conclusion, this study compares the efficacy of calcifediol and cholecalciferol to correct serum 25(OH)D in a cohort of vitamin D deficient postmenopausal women (osteoporotic and non‐osteoporotic).”(1) The final version of the title for our paper was modified according to suggestions by the Editor in Chief and reviewers of the journal. The data exposed in this manuscript clearly showed that calcifediol is about three times more potent than cholecalciferol. The title of our manuscript is thus correctly reflecting the data and the conclusions.

Issue Section:
Reply Letter to the Editor
You do not currently have access to this article.
Download all slides