4.3 Article

Antioxidant intake from diet and supplements and elevated serum C-reactive protein and plasma homocysteine concentrations in US adults: a cross-sectional study

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 2055-2064

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980011000395

关键词

Antioxidants; Vitamin C; Vitamin E; Flavonoids; Carotenes; Selenium; C-reactive protein; Homocysteine; Diet; Supplements

资金

  1. American Heart Association [0865092E]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the association of antioxidant intakes from diet and supplements with elevated blood C-reactive protein (CRP) and homocysteine (Hcy) concentrations. Design: A cross-sectional study. The main exposures were vitamins C and E, carotene, flavonoid and Se intakes from diet and supplements. Elevated blood CRP and Hcy concentrations were the outcome measures. Setting: The US population and its subgroups. Subjects: We included 8335 US adults aged >= 19 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2002. Results: In this US population, the mean serum CRP concentration was 4.14 (95% CI 3.91, 4.37) mg/l. Intakes of vitamins C and E and carotene were inversely associated with the probability of having serum CRP concentrations >3 mg/l in multivariate logistic regression models. Flavonoid and Se intakes were not associated with the odds of elevated serum CRP concentrations. The mean plasma Hey concentration was 8.61 (95% CI 8.48, 8.74) mu mol/l. Intakes of vitamins C, E, carotenes and Se were inversely associated with the odds of plasma Hcy concentrations >13 mu mol/l after adjusting for covariates. Flavonoid intake was not associated with the chance of elevated plasma Hcy concentrations. Conclusions: These results suggest that high antioxidant intake is associated with lower blood concentrations of CRP and Hcy. These inverse associations may be among the potential mechanisms for the beneficial effect of antioxidant intake on CVD risk mediators in observational studies.

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

4.3
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