4.7 Article

Plasma pyridoxal 5′-phosphate in the US population:: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-2004

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 87, 期 5, 页码 1446-1454

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/87.5.1446

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: No large-scale, population-based study has considered the descriptive epidemiology of vitamin B-6 status with use of plasma pyridoxal 5'-phosphate (PLP), the indicator of vitamin B-6 adequacy used to set the current Recommended Dietary Allowance, which is <= 2 mg/d for all subgroups. Objectives: We sought to examine the epidemiology of vitamin B-6 status in the US population. Methods: In >6000 participants aged >= 1 y in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2004), we considered relations between plasma PLP and various subject characteristics and examined trends in plasma PLP and homocysteine with vitamin B-6 intake, both overall and in selected subgroups. Results: In males, plasma PLP decreased with age after adolescence only in nonusers of supplemental vitamin B-6. Regardless of supplement use, plasma PLP concentrations of women of childbearing age were significantly lower than those of comparably aged men, and most oral contraceptive users had plasma PLP <20 nmol/L. The prevalence of low plasma PLP was significantly >3% at vitamin B-6 intakes from 2 to 2.9 mg/d in all subgroups and at intakes from 3 to 4.9 mg/d in smokers, the elderly, non-Hispanic blacks, and current and former oral contraceptive users. Intakes from 3 to 4.9 mg/d compared with <2 mg/d were associated with significant protection from low plasma PLP in most subgroups and from hyperhomocysteinemia in the elderly. Conclusions: Vitamin B-6 intakes of 3 to 4.9 mg/d appear consistent with the definition of a Recommended Dietary Allowance for most Americans. However, at that intake level, substantial proportions of some population subgroups may not meet accepted criteria for adequate vitamin B-6 status.

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

4.7
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