| Literature DB >> 30940107 |
Natalie L Burke1, Emily W Harville2, Jeffrey K Wickliffe1, Arti Shankar3, Maureen Y Lichtveld1, Michael L McCaskill4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency is a growing public health problem, with pregnant women being particularly vulnerable due to its influences on maternal and neonatal outcomes. However, there are limited data published about mediators of vitamin D status in Louisiana women. We aimed to assess the vitamin D status and its determinants among low-income pregnant and non-pregnant reproductive-aged women from southeast Louisiana.Entities:
Keywords: Low income; Pregnancy; Race; Sun exposure; Vitamin D deficiency; Women and infant clinics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30940107 PMCID: PMC6446262 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2246-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Fig. 1A flow chart illustrating the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study population selection
Fig. 2Determinants investigated for associations with serum vitamin D3 levels
Characteristics of all women, pregnant women vs. non-pregnant women and Black vs White women
| Characteristics | All women | Pregnant women | Non-pregnant women | P) | White women | Black women | Pa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race | 0.623 | ||||||
| Black | 97 (53%) | 47 (55%) | 50 (51%) | – | – | ||
| White | 87 (47%) | 39 (45%) | 48 (49%) | – | – | ||
| Season | 0.263 | 0.199 | |||||
| Spring | 31 (18%) | 14 (17%) | 17 (19%) | 14(17%) | 17(19%) | ||
| Summer | 84 (49%) | 35 (43%) | 49 (54%) | 34(42%) | 50(55%) | ||
| Autumn | 43 (25%) | 24 (29%) | 19 (21%) | 26(32%) | 17(19%) | ||
| Winter | 14 (8%) | 9(11%) | 5 (6%) | 7(9%) | 7(8%) | ||
| Fish consumption | 0.663 | 0.206 | |||||
| 0 oz/week | 50 (27%) | 25 (29%) | 25 (26%) | 29 (33%) | 21 (22%) | ||
| 0–3.5 oz/week | 90 (49%) | 39 (45%) | 51 (52%) | 39 (45%) | 51 (53%) | ||
| > 3.5 oz/week | 44 (24%) | 22 (26%) | 22 (22%) | 19 (22%) | 25,926%) | ||
| Pregnant | 0.623 | ||||||
| no | 98 (53%) | – | – | 48 (55%) | 50 (52%) | ||
| yes | 86 (47%) | – | – | 39 (45%) | 47 (48%) | ||
| Age |
| 0.952 | |||||
| 18–25 | 68 (40%) | 38 (47%) | 30 (33%) | 31 (39%) | 37 (40%) | ||
| > 25–30 | 46 (27%) | 25 (31%) | 21 (23%) | 21 (26%) | 25 (27%) | ||
| > 30–35 | 35 (20%) | 12 (15%) | 23 (25%) | 16 (20%) | 19 (21%) | ||
| > 35 | 23 (13%) | 6 (7.4%) | 17 (19%) | 12 (15%) | 11 (12%) | ||
| BMI | 0.243* | 0.618* | |||||
| < 18.5 | 2 (1%) | 2 (2%) | 0 (0%)* | 0 (0%)* | 2(2%) | ||
| 18.5-24.99 | 47 (26%) | 24 (30%) | 23(24%) | 22 (27%) | 25(26%) | ||
| 25–29.99 | 43 (24%) | 16 (20%) | 27(28%) | 20(24%) | 23(24%) | ||
| > 30 | 86 (48%) | 39 (48%) | 47 (49%) | 41 (49%) | 45(47%) | ||
| Income | 0.899 | 0.417 | |||||
| < $ 10,000 | 85 (50%) | 38 (48%) | 47 (52%) | 35 (46%) | 50 (54%) | ||
| >$ 10,000 - $ 30,000 | 56 (33%) | 27 (34%) | 29 (32%) | 26(34%) | 30 (32%) | ||
| > $ 30,000 | 29 (17%) | 14 (18%) | 15 (17%) | 16 (21%) | 13 (14%) | ||
| WIC |
| 0.684 | |||||
| yes | 121 (69%) | 50 (58%) | 71 (79%) | 59 (70%) | 62 (67%) | ||
| no | 55 (31%) | 36 (42%) | 19 (21%) | 25 (30%) | 30 (33%) | ||
| Education level | 0.793 | 0.641 | |||||
| High school or less | 96 (53%) | 45 (54%) | 51 (52%) | 47(55%) | 49 (51%) | ||
| Some college/Associate’s degree | 77 (42%) | 34 (40%) | 43 (44%) | 35(41%) | 42 (43%) | ||
| College graduate or higher | 9 (5%) | 5 (6%) | 4 (4%) | 3(4%) | (6%) | ||
| Smoking level |
|
| |||||
| nonsmoker | 114 (64%) | 54 (66%) | 60 (63%) | 41 (50%) | 73 (77%) | ||
| former | 16 (9%) | 14 (17%) | 2 (2%) | 11(13%) | 5 (5%) | ||
| 1–10 cigs/day | 39 (22%) | 14 (17%) | 25 (26%) | 23 (28%) | 16 (17%) | ||
| > = 11 cigs/day | 8 (5%) | 0 (0%)* | 8 (8%) | 7 (9%) | 1 (1%) | ||
| Cotinine | 0.547 |
| |||||
| High (> 12.9 ng/mL) | 21 (29%) | 12 (27%) | 9 (33%) | 15(43%) | 6 (16%) | ||
| Low (< 12.9 ng/mL) | 51 (71%) | 33 (73%) | 18 (67%) | 20 (57%) | 31 (84%) | ||
| Lead (Median) | 0.052 | 0.596 | |||||
| High (> 0.48μg/dL) | 85 (50%) | 30 (41%) | 55 (56%) | 39 (52%) | 47 (48%) | ||
| Low (< 0.48μg/dL) | 86 (50%) | 43 (59%) | 43 (44%) | 36 (48%) | 50 (52%) | ||
| Mercury | 0.215 | 0.126 | |||||
| High (> 5.8 μg/L) | 89 (52%) | 42 (58%) | 47 (48%) | 44 (59%) | 45 (47%) | ||
| Low (< 5.8 μg/L) | 82 (48%) | 31 (43%) | 51 (52%) | 31 (41%) | 51 (53%) | ||
| Cadmium (median) | 0.058 | 0.381 | |||||
| High (>.47 μg/L) | 87 (51%) | 31 (42%) | 56 (57%) | 41 (55%) | 46 (48%) | ||
| Low (<.47 μg/L) | 84 (49% | 42 (58%) | 42 (43%) | 34 (45%) | 50 (52%) | ||
| Proximity to coast |
|
| |||||
| Zip code proximal to coast | 30 (18%) | 8 (10%) | 22 (25%) | 21 (25%) | 9(11%) | ||
| Further from coast | 139 (82%) | 72 (90%) | 67 (75%) | 63(75%) | 76(89%) | ||
*Data may not add to total amounts due to missing data
p) The p-values refer to differences between pregnant and non-pregnant women, using Pearson chi-square tests (Bold type indicates significance p < 0.05
pa) The p-values refer to differences between White and Black women, using Pearson chi-square tests (Bold type indicates significance p < 0.05)
*Chi-square test not reliable if cell has frequency of 0
Vitamin D status (severe deficiency/moderate deficiency) and mean 25(OH)D levels stratified by characteristics including significance values for bivariate analyses
| Characteristics | Severe deficiency (< 20 ng/mL) | Moderate deficiency (21–30 ng/mL) | p | Mean 25(OH)D levels (SD) | Pa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 38% | 29% | 24.1 (10.7) | ||
| Race |
|
| |||
| Black | 52% | 29% | 20.7 (9.9) | ||
| White | 23% | 29% | 27.9 (10.4) | ||
| Season |
|
| |||
| Spring | 42% | 32% | 22.0 (10.8)* | ||
| Summer | 44% | 26% | 23.1 (10.8)* | ||
| Autumn | 16% | 33% | 28.8 (9.7)* | ||
| Winter | 43% | 36% | 23.0 (11.7) | ||
| Fatty fish consumption | 0.272 | 0.605 | |||
| 0 oz/week | 26% | 32% | 26.8 (10.3) | ||
| 0–3.5 oz/week | 44% | 26% | 22.9 (11.0) | ||
| > 3.5 oz/week | 39% | 32% | 23.5 (10.3) | ||
| Pregnant |
|
| |||
| Yes | 26 | 35 36% | 25.9 (11.3) 30.5(10.6)b | ||
| No | 49 | 24 22% | 22.6(10.0) 25.8(9.9)b | ||
| Age | 0.056 |
| |||
| 18–25 | 27% | 29% | 27.0 (11.6) * | ||
| > 25–30 | 37% | 26% | 24.1 (10.5) | ||
| > 30–35 | 49% | 34% | 20.8 (8.6) * | ||
| > 35 | 52% | 30% | 20.8 (9.5) | ||
| BMI |
| 0.754 | |||
| < 18.5 | – | – | 29.1 (10.0) | ||
| 18.5–24.99 | – | – | 24.8 (11.7) | ||
| 25.29.99 | – | – | 22.8 (10.5) | ||
| > 30 | – | – | 23.9 (10.5) | ||
| Income | 0.579 | 0.894 | |||
| < $ 10,000 | 38% | 33% | 23.7 (10.1) | ||
| >$ 10,000 - $ 30,000 | 45% | 29% | 23.3 (11.7) | ||
| > $ 30,000 | 38% | 21% | 24.4 (11.1) | ||
| WIC | 0.282 | 0.120 | |||
| yes | 35% | 31% | 24.8 (10.4) | ||
| no | 47% | 26% | 22.8 (11.3) | ||
| Education level | 0.787 | 0.946 | |||
| High school or less | 37% | 29% | 24.2 (10.7) | ||
| Some college/Associate’s degree | 42% | 26% | 23.9 (11.0) | ||
| College graduate or higher | 33% | 44% | 25.0 (10.1) | ||
| Alcohol use (drinks/week)- | 0.146 | ||||
| 14 or more | – | – | 22.5 (12.7) | ||
| 7 to 13 | – | – | 26.2(6.8) | ||
| 4 to 6 | – | – | 22.6 (8.2) | ||
| 1 to 3 | – | – | 20.2 (10.9) | ||
| Less than 1 | – | – | 27.5 (11.0) | ||
| I didn’t drink then | – | – | 23.9 (10.9) | ||
| Smoking level | 0.795 | 0.445 | |||
| nonsmoker | 42% | 28% | 23.2 (10.7) | ||
| former | 31% | 38% | 24.8 (11.3) | ||
| 1–10 cigs/day | 31% | 28% | 26.3 (10.7) | ||
| > = 11 cigs/day | 38% | 38% | 23.0 (10.9) | ||
| Cotinine |
|
| |||
| High (> 12.9 ng/mL) | 16% | 24% | 29.9 (10.7) | ||
| Low (< 12.9 ng/mL) | 42% | 31% | 21.8 (11.0) | ||
| Cadmium (median) | 0.281 | 0.482 | |||
| High (> 0.47 μg/L) | 40% | 33% | 23.1 (9.8) | ||
| Low (< 0.47μg/L) | 41% | 24% | 24.2 (11.3) | ||
| Lead (median) | 0.257 | 0.211 | |||
| High (> 0.48 μg/dL) | 46% | 28% | 22.6 (10.5) | ||
| Low (< 0.48 μg/dL) | 35% | 29% | 24.7 (10.5) | ||
| Mercury | 0.168 | 0.446 | |||
| High (> 5.8 μg/L) | 24% | 47% | 25.5 (10.1) | ||
| Low (< 5.8 μg/L) | 42% | 27% | 23.5 (10.6) | ||
| Proximity to coast | 0.488 | 0.875 | |||
| Zip code proximal to coast | 43% | 20% | 23.8 (9.9) | ||
| Further from coast | 37% | 31% | 24.1 (11.1) | ||
P values determined by chi-square tests. Differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05, bold type indicates significance
pa values determined by Independent-Samples T test or one-way ANOVA; significance at p < 0.05; bold type indicates significance
*significantly different using Tukey’s test
bsignificantly different using Independent-Samples T test
- due to small n in cells, chi-square test assumptions were not met and could not be performed
Spearman’s rho bivariate analysis of vitamin D with heavy metals
| Vit D (ng/mL) | Pb (μg/dL) | Hg (μg/L) | Cd (μg/L) | Salivary cotinine (ng/mL) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vit D (ng/mL) | |||||
| Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | ||||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | . | ||||
| Pb (μg/dL) | |||||
| Correlation Coefficient | − 0.099 | 1.000 | |||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.196 | . | |||
| Hg (μg/L) | |||||
| Correlation Coefficient | −0.013 | 0.099 | 1.000 | ||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.865 | 0.199 | . | ||
| Cd (μg/L) | |||||
| Correlation Coefficient | −0.033 | 0.364b | 0.206a | 1.000 | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.665 | 0.000 | 0.007 | . | |
a Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
b Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Spearman’s rho bivariate analysis of vitamin D with fish and seafood
| 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | 8. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Vit D (ng/mL) | ||||||||
| Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | |||||||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | . | |||||||
| 2.Fatty fish consumption | ||||||||
| in ounces Correlation | −0.118 | 1.000 | ||||||
| Coefficient | 0.111 | . | ||||||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | ||||||||
| 3. Shrimp | ||||||||
| Correlation Coefficient | −0.119 | 0.212b | 1.000 | |||||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.125 | 0.006 | . | |||||
| 4. Canned Tuna | ||||||||
| Correlation Coefficient | −0.113 | 0.753b | 0.284b | 1.000 | ||||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.143 | 0.000 | 0.000 | . | ||||
| 5. Crab | ||||||||
| Correlation Coefficient | −0.022 | 0.244b | 0.713a | 0.280b | 1.000 | |||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.782 | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.000 | . | |||
| 6. Catfish | ||||||||
| Correlation Coefficient | −0.103 | 0.348b | 0.304b | 0.360b | 0.262a | 1.000 | ||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.187 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | . | ||
| 7. Crayfish | ||||||||
| Correlation Coefficient | −0.036 | 0.386b | 0.370a | 0.325b | 0.447a | 0.199a | 1.000 | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.648 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.012 | . | |
| 8. Tilapia | ||||||||
| Correlation Coefficient | −0.096 | 0.517b | 0.234b | 0.403b | 0.214b | 0.377b | 0.262b | 1.000 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.220 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.007 | 0.000 | 0.001 | . |
a Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
b Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Linear regression model for analysis of mean 25(OH)D levels with race, pregnancy, season, age, WIC status in the study population
| Characteristics | β (CI 95%) |
|---|---|
| Race | |
| Black | −6.8 (− 9.8 to − 3.7) |
| White | Referent |
| Pregnant | |
| Yes | 3.4 (0.2 to 6.6) |
| No | Referent |
| Season | |
| Spring | −5.7 (−10.4 to − 1.0) |
| Summer | −3.4 (−7.1 to 0.4) |
| Autumn | Referent |
| Winter | −6.1 (−12.5 to 0.4) |
| Age | |
| 18–25 | Referent |
| > 25–30 | −3.0 (−6.8 to 0.8) |
| > 30–35 | −5.0 (−9.2 to - 0.9) |
| > 35 | −4.3 (−9.2 to 0.7) |
| WIC | |
| Yes | 2.4 (−1.0 to 5.8) |
| No | Referent |
CI, confidence interval
Fig. 3a and b The influence of race and age on mean serum vitamin D3 levels in surveyed women
Fig. 4a and b The influence of race and location of recruitment site on mean serum vitamin D3 levels in surveyed women
Fig. 5a and b The influence of race and seasonality on mean serum vitamin D3 levels in surveyed women