Christine M Pfeiffer1, Maya R Sternberg2, Heather C Hamner3, Krista S Crider4, David A Lacher5, Lisa M Rogers6, Regan L Bailey7,8, Elizabeth A Yetley8. 1. National Center for Environmental Health, cfp8@cdc.gov. 2. National Center for Environmental Health. 3. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, and. 4. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, CDC, Atlanta, GA. 5. National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, Hyattsville, MD. 6. World Health Organization Geneva, Switzerland. 7. Nutrition Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN; and. 8. Office of Dietary Supplements, NIH, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Folate cutoffs for risk of deficiency compared with possible deficiency were originally derived differently (experimental compared with epidemiologic data), and their interpretations are different. The matching of cutoffs derived from one assay with population-based data derived from another assay requires caution. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the extent of folate-status misinterpretation with the use of inappropriate cutoffs. DESIGN: In the cross-sectional NHANES, serum and red blood cell (RBC) folate were first measured with the use of a radioprotein-binding assay (RPBA) (1988-2006) and, afterwards, with the use of a microbiologic assay (2007-2010). We compared prevalence estimates for assay-matched cutoffs (e.g., with the use of an RPBA cutoff with RPBA data) and assay-mismatched cutoffs (e.g., with the use of microbiologic assay cutoff with RPBA data) for risk of deficiency on the basis of megaloblastic anemia as a hematologic indicator in persons ≥4 y of age (e.g., serum folate concentration <7 nmol/L and RBC folate concentration <305 nmol/L derived with the use of a microbiologic assay), possible deficiency on the basis of rising homocysteine as a metabolic indicator in persons ≥4 y of age (e.g., serum folate concentration <10 nmol/L and RBC folate concentration <340 nmol/L derived with the use of an RPBA), and insufficiency on the basis of elevated risk of neural tube defects in women 12-49 y old (e.g., RBC folate concentration <906 nmol/L derived with the use of a microbiologic assay). RESULTS: Pre-folic acid fortification (1988-1994), risks of deficiency for assay-matched compared with assay-mismatched cutoffs were 5.6% compared with 16% (serum folate), respectively, and 7.4% compared with 28% (RBC folate), respectively; risks declined postfortification (1999-2006) to <1% compared with <1% (serum folate), respectively, and to <1% compared with 2.5% (RBC folate), respectively. Prefortification (1988-1994), risks of possible deficiency for assay-matched compared with assay-mismatched cutoffs were 35% compared with 56% (serum folate), respectively, and 37% compared with 84% (RBC folate), respectively; risks declined postfortification (1999-2006) to 1.9% compared with 7.0% (serum folate), respectively, and to 4.8% compared with 53% (RBC folate), respectively. Postfortification (2007-2010), risks of insufficiency were 3% (assay matched) compared with 39% (assay mismatched), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The application of assay-mismatched cutoffs leads to a misinterpretation of folate status. This confusion likely applies to clinical assays because no comparability data are available, to our knowledge.
BACKGROUND: Folate cutoffs for risk of deficiency compared with possible deficiency were originally derived differently (experimental compared with epidemiologic data), and their interpretations are different. The matching of cutoffs derived from one assay with population-based data derived from another assay requires caution. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the extent of folate-status misinterpretation with the use of inappropriate cutoffs. DESIGN: In the cross-sectional NHANES, serum and red blood cell (RBC) folate were first measured with the use of a radioprotein-binding assay (RPBA) (1988-2006) and, afterwards, with the use of a microbiologic assay (2007-2010). We compared prevalence estimates for assay-matched cutoffs (e.g., with the use of an RPBA cutoff with RPBA data) and assay-mismatched cutoffs (e.g., with the use of microbiologic assay cutoff with RPBA data) for risk of deficiency on the basis of megaloblastic anemia as a hematologic indicator in persons ≥4 y of age (e.g., serum folate concentration <7 nmol/L and RBC folate concentration <305 nmol/L derived with the use of a microbiologic assay), possible deficiency on the basis of rising homocysteine as a metabolic indicator in persons ≥4 y of age (e.g., serum folate concentration <10 nmol/L and RBC folate concentration <340 nmol/L derived with the use of an RPBA), and insufficiency on the basis of elevated risk of neural tube defects in women 12-49 y old (e.g., RBC folate concentration <906 nmol/L derived with the use of a microbiologic assay). RESULTS: Pre-folic acid fortification (1988-1994), risks of deficiency for assay-matched compared with assay-mismatched cutoffs were 5.6% compared with 16% (serum folate), respectively, and 7.4% compared with 28% (RBC folate), respectively; risks declined postfortification (1999-2006) to <1% compared with <1% (serum folate), respectively, and to <1% compared with 2.5% (RBC folate), respectively. Prefortification (1988-1994), risks of possible deficiency for assay-matched compared with assay-mismatched cutoffs were 35% compared with 56% (serum folate), respectively, and 37% compared with 84% (RBC folate), respectively; risks declined postfortification (1999-2006) to 1.9% compared with 7.0% (serum folate), respectively, and to 4.8% compared with 53% (RBC folate), respectively. Postfortification (2007-2010), risks of insufficiency were 3% (assay matched) compared with 39% (assay mismatched), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The application of assay-mismatched cutoffs leads to a misinterpretation of folate status. This confusion likely applies to clinical assays because no comparability data are available, to our knowledge.
Authors: Christine M Pfeiffer; Samuel P Caudill; Elaine W Gunter; John Osterloh; Eric J Sampson Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Christine M Pfeiffer; Clifford L Johnson; Ram B Jain; Elizabeth A Yetley; Mary Frances Picciano; Jeanne I Rader; Kenneth D Fisher; Joseph Mulinare; John D Osterloh Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Jorge Rosenthal; Natalia Largaespada; Lynn B Bailey; Michael Cannon; C J Alverson; Dayrin Ortiz; Gail Pa Kauwell; Joe Sniezek; Ramon Figueroa; Robyn Daly; Peter Allen Journal: J Nutr Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Christine M Pfeiffer; David A Lacher; Rosemary L Schleicher; Clifford L Johnson; Elizabeth A Yetley Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 8.701
Authors: Regan L Bailey; Victor L Fulgoni; Christine L Taylor; Christine M Pfeiffer; Sowmyanarayanan V Thuppal; George P McCabe; Elizabeth A Yetley Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Meng-Yu Chen; Charles E Rose; Yan Ping Qi; Jennifer L Williams; Lorraine F Yeung; Robert J Berry; Ling Hao; Michael J Cannon; Krista S Crider Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Padma Maruvada; Patrick J Stover; Joel B Mason; Regan L Bailey; Cindy D Davis; Martha S Field; Richard H Finnell; Cutberto Garza; Ralph Green; Jean-Louis Gueant; Paul F Jacques; David M Klurfeld; Yvonne Lamers; Amanda J MacFarlane; Joshua W Miller; Anne M Molloy; Deborah L O'Connor; Christine M Pfeiffer; Nancy A Potischman; Joseph V Rodricks; Irwin H Rosenberg; Sharon A Ross; Barry Shane; Jacob Selhub; Sally P Stabler; Jacquetta Trasler; Sedigheh Yamini; Giovanna Zappalà Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 7.045