4.7 Article

Fat-soluble vitamin levels in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 96, 期 9, 页码 2745-2750

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9270(01)02696-X

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To determine the occurrence of fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies and to identify clinical factors that may predict vitamin deficiency in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). METHODS: Review of our data from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy of UDCA in 180 patients with PBC. We use the first available measurements of vitamin levels in each study participant. Vitamin levels for A, D, and E were measured in serum. The prothrombin time (PT) was used as a surrogate marker for vitamin K. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies in the treatment and placebo groups was similar and the data sets were combined. The proportion with vitamin A, D, E or K deficiency was 33.5%, 13.2%, 1.9%, and 7.8%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the Mayo risk score, advanced histological stage, and total cholesterol were independently associated with vitamin A deficiency whereas serum albumin levels was independently associated with vitamin D deficiency. No factors were associated with vitamin E or K deficiency in multivariate analysis owing to the few vitamin E and K deficient patients. Factors predictive of vitamin K deficiency by univariate analysis included Mayo risk score, advanced histological stage, HDL, total bilirubin, AST, and albumin. The cut-off value of the Mayo risk score with the highest sensitivity and specificity for vitamin A deficiency was 5.0. CONCLUSION: Other than deficiency of vitamin A, deficiency of fat-soluble vitamins occurs uncommonly in patients with PBC. A Mayo risk score greater than or equal to 5 helps in selecting patients with PBC for surveillance for vitamin A deficiency. (Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:2745-2750. (C) 2001 by Am. Coll. of Gastroenterology).

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