4.4 Article

A Comparison of Folic Acid Pharmacokinetics in Obese and Nonobese Women of Childbearing Age

期刊

THERAPEUTIC DRUG MONITORING
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 336-340

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0b013e318219407a

关键词

folic acid; obesity; pharmacokinetics; therapeutic drug monitoring

资金

  1. Duchesnay Inc. (Blainville, Quebec)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although maternal folate deficiency during the periconceptional period represents a major risk factor for neural tube defects, obesity has been recognized as an additional risk factor. Studies have identified an increased risk for neural tube defect-affected births among obese mothers even after adjusting for folic acid supplementation. However, although folic acid intake may have been at the recommended dose in these samples, blood folate concentrations were not monitored to ensure that protective levels were reached. Hence, there is a need to compare folic acid pharmacokinetics in obese and nonobese women of childbearing age. Methods: Healthy obese (n = 12) and nonobese (n = 12) women of childbearing age volunteered to participate. Each obese participant was matched to a nonobese participant and assigned an equivalent dose of folic acid per kilogram body weight. Folic acid was orally administered after a 6-hour fast, and blood samples were taken over a 10-hour period to evaluate pharmacokinetic parameters. Results: Area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) was found to be significantly higher in the obese group (P = 0.008). Defining AUC as a function of dose per kilogram lean body weight (LBW) was found to be a stronger predictor than dose per kilogram total body weight (r(2) = 0.90 and 0.76, respectively). Conclusions: This indicates that the body tightly controls systemic exposure to folic acid, with 90% of the variability in AUC controlled by the dose per kilogram LBW. Periconceptional supplementation recommendations may need to be adjusted to account for LBW differences in the obese population.

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

4.4
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