4.6 Article

A Vitamin B-12 Supplement of 500 paid for Eight Weeks Does Not Normalize Urinary Methylmalonic Acid or Other Biomarkers of Vitamin B-12 Status in Elderly People with Moderately Poor Vitamin B-12 Status

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 143, 期 2, 页码 142-147

出版社

AMER SOC NUTRITION-ASN
DOI: 10.3945/jn.112.169193

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Health [N05R0014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plasma vitamin B-12 is the most commonly used biomarker of vitamin B-12 status, but the predictive value for low vitamin B-12 status is poor. The urinary methylmalonic acid (uMMA) concentration has potential as a functional biomarker of vitamin B-12 status, but the response to supplemental vitamin B-12 is uncertain. A study was conducted to investigate the responsiveness of uMMA to supplemental vitamin B-12 in comparison with other biomarkers of vitamin B-12 status [plasma vitamin B-12, serum holotranscobalamin (holoTC), plasma MMAJ in elderly people with moderately poor vitamin B-12 status. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized 8-wk intervention study was carried out using vitamin B-12 supplements (500 mu g/d, 100 mu g/d, and 10 mu g/d cyanocobalamin) in 100 elderly people with a combined plasma vitamin B-12 <250 pmol/L and uMMA ratio (mu mol MMA/mmol creatinine) >1.5. All biomarkers had a dose response to supplemental vitamin B-12. Improvements in plasma vitamin B-12 and serum holoTC were achieved at cobalamin supplements of 10 mu g/d, but even 500 mu g/d for 8 wk did not normalize plasma vitamin B-12 in 8% and serum holoTC in 12% of people. The response in uMMA was comparable with plasma MMA; 15-25% of people still showed evidence of metabolic deficiency after 500 mu g/d cobalamin for 8 wk. There was a differential response in urinary and plasma MMA according to smoking behavior; the response was enhanced in ex-smokers compared with never-smokers. uMMA offers an alternative marker of metabolic vitamin-B12 status, obviating the need for blood sampling. J. Nutr. 143: 142-147, 2013.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据