4.6 Article

Abnormal vitamin B6 status is associated with severity of symptoms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 114, 期 4, 页码 283-287

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01528-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR 00054] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have low plasma vitamin B-6 levels and elevated plasma homocysteine responses to a methionine load. We examined whether these abnormalities are associated with clinical and biochemical indicators of disease status. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study in 37 patients who met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Vitamin B-6 status was assessed by the plasma pyridoxal 5'-phosphate level and with the homocysteine response to a methionine load test. Clinical disease activity was assessed by joint counts, the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability score, and biochemical markers of the acute phase response. RESULTS: Plasma pyridoxal 5'-phosphate levels were inversely correlated with the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (r = -0.37, P = 0.02), C-reactive protein level (r = -0.52, P = 0.002), disability score (r = -0.37, P = 0.02), morning stiffness (r = -0.38, P = 0.02), and degree of pain (r = -0.33, P = 0.04). The increase in homocysteine levels after a methionine load correlated with the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (r = 0.39, P = 0.02), C-reactive protein level (r = 0.37, P = 0.03), disability score (r = 0.37, P = 0.04), degree of pain (r = 0.38, P = 0.02) and fatigue (r = 0.42, P = 0.01), number of painful joints (r = 0.43, P = 0.007), and number of swollen joints (r = 0.32, P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Markers of vitamin B-6 status are associated with disease activity and severity, synovial burden, and pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, raising the possibility that impaired vitamin B-6 status in these patients is a result of inflammation. (C) 2003 by Excerpta Medica Inc.

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