4.4 Article

Vitamin D status of newborns in New Zealand

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 104, 期 7, 页码 1051-1057

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114510001674

关键词

Vitamin D; 25-Hydroxyvitamin D; Newborns; Pregnancy; New Zealand

资金

  1. Health Research Council of New Zealand
  2. David and Cassie Anderson Bequest (Wellington, New Zealand)
  3. Massachusetts General Hospital Center for D-receptor Activation Research (Boston, MA, USA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recognition of the important non-skeletal health effects of vitamin D has focused attention on the vitamin D status of individuals across the lifespan. To examine the vitamin D status of newborns, we measured serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH) D) in the cord blood of 929 apparently healthy newborns in a population-based study in New Zealand, a country at 41 degrees S latitude, with strong anti-skin cancer (sun avoidance) campaigns and without vitamin D food fortification. Randomly selected midwives in two regions recruited children. The median cord blood level of 25(OH) D was 44 nmol/l (interquartile range, 29-78 nmol/l). Overall, 19% of newborns had 25(OH) D levels <25 nmol/l and 57% had levels <50 nmol/l; only 27% had levels of 75 nmol/l or higher, which are levels associated with optimal health in older children and adults. A multivariable ordinal logistic regression model showed that the strongest determinants of low vitamin D status were winter month of birth and non-European ethnicity. Other determinants of low cord blood 25(OH) D included longer gestational age, younger maternal age and a parental history of asthma. In summary, low levels of vitamin D are common among apparently healthy New Zealand newborns, and are independently associated with several easily identified factors. Although the optimal timing and dosage of vitamin D supplementation require further study, our findings may assist future efforts to correct low levels of 25(OH) D among New Zealand mothers and their newborn children.

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

4.4
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