4.3 Article

Association between birth outcomes and aflatoxin B1 biomarker blood levels in pregnant women in Kumasi, Ghana

期刊

TROPICAL MEDICINE & INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 160-167

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02435.x

关键词

aflatoxins; birth outcomes; pregnancy; Kumasi

资金

  1. USAID [LAG-G-00-96-90013-00]
  2. University of Georgia, GA, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To investigate the association between birth outcomes and blood levels of aflatoxin B-1 (AFB(1))-lysine adduct in pregnant women in Kumasi, Ghana. METHOD A cross-sectional study of 785 pregnant women attending antenatal clinic was conducted. Aflatoxin B-1 (AFB(1))-lysine adduct levels were determined by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) on blood taken after delivery. The birth outcomes considered were small for gestation age, low birthweight, preterm delivery and stillbirth. Participants were divided into quartiles based on the distribution of aflatoxin B-1-lysine adducts in pg/mg albumin ('low': <= 2.67, 'moderate': > 2.67 to <= 4.97, 'high': > 4.97 to <= 11.34, 'very high': > 11.34). Statistical analysis involved models that included socio-demographic variables and other potential confounders. RESULTS The average AFB(1)-lysine adduct level in maternal serum was 10.9 +/- 19.00 pg/mg albumin (range = 0.44-268.73 pg/mg). After adjusting for socio-demographic variables and potential confounding factors, participants in the highest AFB(1)-lysine quartile with 'very high' AFB(1)-lysine level (> 11.34 pg/mg) were more likely to have low birthweight babies (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.19-3.68), and showed a trend of increasing risk for low birthweight (P-trend = 0.007) compared to participants in the lowest quartile. CONCLUSION This study adds to the growing body of evidence that aflatoxins may increase the risk of adverse birth outcomes. The findings have implications for targeted nutritional education of pregnant women in areas with high levels of aflatoxin contamination of foods.

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