Talk:Vitamin K

message: The article discusses conversion of Vitamin K1 to Vitamin K2 but does not address conversion of Vitamin K2 to Vitamin K1. Supplements of Vitamin K2 are considered desirable, but it is important to know whether these supplements satisfy the need for Vitamin K1. ---76.130.134.87 (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we even know of a need for Vitamin K1 specifically? Artoria2e5 🌉 08:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion of Vitamin K2 to Vitamin K1 

message: There is a new study with some more details. I don't have the time to screen it and will just leave it here. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Animal work ("mice") not considered WP:MEDRS, so probably no place in article for it. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I know but the article does talk about a vitamin and not a medical condition. As such the article currently states "Animals may also convert it to vitamin K2, variant MK-4." this passage could be improved using the source above. CarlFromVienna (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to MK4 

message: I'd heard the combination has health benefits, especially at high dosages of vitamin D. I found some resources to verify this and hope someone more informed on the subject can add this to the page. National Library of Medicine PubMed NicoLaan (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combination of vitamin D and K 

message: The section "medical uses" is currently very vague on which form of vitamin K is used. That feels like a thing to be clarified, and in some cases, a deviation from the sources.
* The newborn review only deals with injection of K1.
* The warfarin article Tomaselli2017 only vaguely says "vitamin K", BUT among the sources it cites, the only one that deals with giving K in response to warfarin is "Characterizing the severe reactions of parenteral vitamin K1".
* The Bateman & Page rodenticide article only vaguely says "vitamin K" in the "Management" section... BUT again:
** the mention of IV anaphylaxis strongly suggests that the authors treat the term as a synonym of K1. The associated ref makes the same mistake in the title; I cannot access the text right now.
** Bateman & Page Ref 12 seems to use K1 and K interchangeably in the abstract. I cannot access the text right now.
** B&P ref 16 uses both K1 and just "K". It has its own layer of refs to chew through: some mention K1 directly in the title, others just say "K".
*** The HG Watson 2008 article referenced compares Orakay (K1), menadiol sodium phosphate (!), and Konakion (K1). That's the first mention of a not-K1 I've seen.
** I did not check any other refs. 
* The "side effects" subsection is excellent.
I believe the distinction does matter for two reasons:
* There is a known difference in side effect with the IV route, already described in the article.
* The article does not provide evidence that different forms of K are equivalent in strength when given orally. It actually hints at the opposite, as the infant and the warfarin sections specifically talk about dietary K1, not dietary K in general. (What little we know about the minimum effective oral dose of menatetrenone [MK-4] also show that there really is a damn huge difference.)
(On the medical standaridization side: the WHO EML only lists K1, under the name Phytomenadione. The WHO ATC-DDD lists both B02BA01 K1 and B02BA02 K2, though again what little we know about MK-4 shows that there's also a damn huge difference among K2 of different lengths.)
-- Artoria2e5 🌉 08:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: All valid issues, and calls for a close read of the existing references and potentially a search for additional references. David notMD (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical uses: which K?