Is natural (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid as effective as synthetic folic acid in increasing serum and red blood cell folate concentrations during pregnancy? A proof-of-concept pilot study.
Adult
Biomarkers
/ blood
Canada
/ epidemiology
Dietary Supplements
Double-Blind Method
Female
Humans
Milk, Human
/ chemistry
Neural Tube Defects
/ epidemiology
Nutrition Therapy
/ methods
Pilot Projects
Pregnancy
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Tetrahydrofolates
/ administration & dosage
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Folate
Folic acid
Neural tube defects
Nutrition
Pregnancy
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 May 2020
05 May 2020
Historique:
received:
19
11
2019
accepted:
10
04
2020
entrez:
7
5
2020
pubmed:
7
5
2020
medline:
30
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
North American health authorities recommend 0.4 mg/day folic acid before conception and throughout pregnancy to reduce the risk of neural tube defects. Folic acid is a synthetic form of folate that must be reduced by dihydrofolate reductase and then further metabolized. Recent evidence suggests that the maximal capacity for this process is limited and unmetabolized folic acid has been detected in the circulation. The biological effects of unmetabolized folic acid are unknown. A natural form of folate, (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid (Metafolin®), may be a superior alternative because it does not need to be reduced in the small intestine. Metafolin® is currently used in some prenatal multivitamins; however, it has yet to be evaluated during pregnancy. This double-blind, randomized trial will recruit 60 pregnant women aged 19-42 years. The women will receive either 0.6 mg/day folic acid or an equimolar dose (0.625 mg/day) of (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid for 16 weeks. The trial will be initiated at 8-21 weeks' gestation (after neural tube closure) to reduce the risk of harm should (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid prove less effective. All women will also receive a prenatal multivitamin (not containing folate) to ensure adequacy of other nutrients. Baseline and endline blood samples will be collected to assess primary outcome measures, including serum folate, red blood cell folate and unmetabolized folic acid. The extent to which the change in primary outcomes from baseline to endline differs between treatment groups, controlling for baseline level, will be estimated using linear regression. Participants will have the option to continue supplementing until 1 week postpartum to provide a breastmilk and blood sample. Exploratory analyses will be completed to evaluate breastmilk and postpartum blood folate concentrations. This proof-of-concept trial is needed to obtain estimates of the effect of (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid compared to folic acid on circulating biomarkers of folate status during pregnancy. These estimates will inform the design of a definitive trial which will be powered to assess whether (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid is as effective as folic acid in raising blood folate concentrations during pregnancy. Ultimately, these findings will inform folate supplementation policies for pregnant women. ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT04022135. Registered on 14 July 2019.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
North American health authorities recommend 0.4 mg/day folic acid before conception and throughout pregnancy to reduce the risk of neural tube defects. Folic acid is a synthetic form of folate that must be reduced by dihydrofolate reductase and then further metabolized. Recent evidence suggests that the maximal capacity for this process is limited and unmetabolized folic acid has been detected in the circulation. The biological effects of unmetabolized folic acid are unknown. A natural form of folate, (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid (Metafolin®), may be a superior alternative because it does not need to be reduced in the small intestine. Metafolin® is currently used in some prenatal multivitamins; however, it has yet to be evaluated during pregnancy.
METHODS/DESIGN
METHODS
This double-blind, randomized trial will recruit 60 pregnant women aged 19-42 years. The women will receive either 0.6 mg/day folic acid or an equimolar dose (0.625 mg/day) of (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid for 16 weeks. The trial will be initiated at 8-21 weeks' gestation (after neural tube closure) to reduce the risk of harm should (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid prove less effective. All women will also receive a prenatal multivitamin (not containing folate) to ensure adequacy of other nutrients. Baseline and endline blood samples will be collected to assess primary outcome measures, including serum folate, red blood cell folate and unmetabolized folic acid. The extent to which the change in primary outcomes from baseline to endline differs between treatment groups, controlling for baseline level, will be estimated using linear regression. Participants will have the option to continue supplementing until 1 week postpartum to provide a breastmilk and blood sample. Exploratory analyses will be completed to evaluate breastmilk and postpartum blood folate concentrations.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This proof-of-concept trial is needed to obtain estimates of the effect of (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid compared to folic acid on circulating biomarkers of folate status during pregnancy. These estimates will inform the design of a definitive trial which will be powered to assess whether (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid is as effective as folic acid in raising blood folate concentrations during pregnancy. Ultimately, these findings will inform folate supplementation policies for pregnant women.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT04022135. Registered on 14 July 2019.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32370802
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04320-3
pii: 10.1186/s13063-020-04320-3
pmc: PMC7201521
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Tetrahydrofolates
0
5-methyltetrahydrofolate
TYK22LML8F
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04022135']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
380Références
J Nutr. 2005 Jan;135(1):137-43
pubmed: 15623845
Food Nutr Bull. 2008 Jun;29(2 Suppl):S5-16; discussion S17-9
pubmed: 18709878
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Sep 8;106(36):15424-9
pubmed: 19706381
Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 Apr 1;107(4):497-498
pubmed: 29635510
Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 Apr;45(4):770-9
pubmed: 3565305
BMJ. 2013 Jan 08;346:e7586
pubmed: 23303884
Nat Genet. 1995 May;10(1):111-3
pubmed: 7647779
Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Apr;83(4):842-50
pubmed: 16600937
Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Oct;94(4):1079-87
pubmed: 21900461
Adv Nutr. 2018 May 1;9(suppl_1):278S-294S
pubmed: 29846526
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2009 Apr;85(4):295-302
pubmed: 19301298
Eur J Pediatr. 1998 Apr;157 Suppl 2:S40-4
pubmed: 9587024
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2008 Jul;82(7):527-32
pubmed: 18481813
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Sep;86(3):718-27
pubmed: 17823438
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2009 Apr;85(4):274-84
pubmed: 19180567
Clin Chem. 2004 Feb;50(2):423-32
pubmed: 14670827
Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 Aug;100(2):593-9
pubmed: 24944062
Methods Enzymol. 1997;281:43-53
pubmed: 9250965
Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012;2012:485179
pubmed: 22529856
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jul 12;357(2):135-42
pubmed: 17625125
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Nov;86(5):1414-9
pubmed: 17991654
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Mar;77(3):658-62
pubmed: 12600857
CMAJ. 2011 Feb 8;183(2):E100-6
pubmed: 21149516
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Sep;88(3):763-8
pubmed: 18779294
N Engl J Med. 1992 Dec 24;327(26):1832-5
pubmed: 1307234
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016 Dec;38(12):1127-1137
pubmed: 27986189
Anal Biochem. 1996 Jul 1;238(2):179-83
pubmed: 8660608
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Mar;129(3):554-559
pubmed: 28178062
Am J Clin Nutr. 2015 Oct;102(4):848-57
pubmed: 26269367
BMC Public Health. 2007 Mar 22;7:41
pubmed: 17378936
N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 4;367(14):1355-60
pubmed: 23034025
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015 Jun;37(6):534-52
pubmed: 26334606
J Am Coll Nutr. 2017 Sep-Oct;36(7):572-578
pubmed: 28895788
J Nutr. 2004 Jan;134(1):31-7
pubmed: 14704289
Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):216-20
pubmed: 19056550
Am J Clin Nutr. 2017 Aug;106(2):541-548
pubmed: 28615265
J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2003 May 5;788(1):187-91
pubmed: 12668084
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2012;52(5):410-25
pubmed: 22369260
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Mar;79(3):473-8
pubmed: 14985224
Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Feb;75(2):275-82
pubmed: 11815318
JAMA. 1995 Dec 6;274(21):1698-702
pubmed: 7474275
Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 Dec 1;108(6):1357-1368
pubmed: 30541097
Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Jun;65(6):1790-5
pubmed: 9174474
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2010 Aug;49(8):535-48
pubmed: 20608755
Paediatr Child Health. 2016 Apr;21(3):145-54
pubmed: 27398055
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Mar;65(3):301-8
pubmed: 22169081
Br J Nutr. 2006 Jan;95(1):145-51
pubmed: 16441927
Methods Mol Biol. 2016;1378:255-62
pubmed: 26602137
J Nutr. 2018 Jun 1;148(6):885-890
pubmed: 29878267
Am J Clin Nutr. 2017 May;105(5):1101-1109
pubmed: 28298392
Lancet. 1991 Jul 20;338(8760):131-7
pubmed: 1677062
J Chromatogr. 1985 Aug 9;342(2):277-84
pubmed: 4055950
Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jul;84(1):156-61
pubmed: 16825690