Select Dietary Supplement Ingredients for Preserving and Protecting the Immune System in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review.

Immune health products represent approximately 10% of all US dietary supplement sales. Claims made on products to support or boost the immune system are attractive to the otherwise healthy consumer who may or may not be experiencing certain life stressors. The purpose of this systematic review is to critically evaluate the purported benefits and/or potential harms of select dietary supplement ingredients frequently listed on the labels of products having immune health or related market claims. With a focus on resilience, research questions were related to whether dietary supplement ingredients are efficacious in preserving and protecting immune health in healthy individuals; and when faced with a stressor, whether taking a supplement prophylactically can assist in maintaining health and resisting or bouncing back more quickly. Thirty-nine randomized controlled studies involving populations including children, adults and seniors exposed to stressors, such as air travel, intense exercise, academic stress, and/or exposure to winter weather, met eligibility criteria. The studies included eight of the 27 supplement ingredients identified through a market-driven scoping review. Those ingredients used in single ingredient products were echinacea, elderberry, garlic, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, and zinc. Whereas some studies may point to evidence for benefit, specific gaps preclude the authors from making firm statements with regard to the overall evidence-base for these products and ingredients and in answering the research questions. As we move toward a vision of health promotion and resilience rather than a sole focus on disease prevention and treatment, further work in this area of dietary supplements is of utmost importance.

Protective effects of dietary curcumin and astaxanthin against heat-induced ROS production and skeletal muscle injury in male and female C57BL/6J mice.

AIMS: This study aimed to: 1) investigate sex differences in heat-induced mitochondrial dysfunction, ROS production, and skeletal muscle injury in mice; 2) evaluate whether curcumin and astaxanthin, alone or together, would prevent those heat-induced changes. MAIN METHODS: Male and female C57BL/6J mice were treated with curcumin and astaxanthin for 10 days, then exposed to 39.5 °C heat for up to 3 h. Heat-induced hyperthermia, changes in mitochondrial morphology and function, and oxidative damage to skeletal muscle were evaluated. KEY FINDINGS: Although female mice had a slightly higher basal core body temperature (Tc) than male mice, peak Tc during heat exposure was significantly lower in females than in males. Heat increased ROS levels in skeletal muscle in both sexes; interestingly, the increases in ROS were greater in females than in males. Despite the above-mentioned differences, heat induced similar levels of mitochondrial fragmentation and membrane potential depolarization, caspase 3/7 activation, and injury in male and female skeletal muscle. Individual treatment of curcumin or astaxanthin did not affect basal and peak Tc but prevented heat-induced mitochondrial dysfunction, ROS increases, and apoptosis in a dose-dependent manner. Moreover, a low-dose combination of curcumin and astaxanthin, which individually showed no effect, reduced the heat-induced oxidative damage to skeletal muscle. SIGNIFICANCE: Both male and female mice can develop mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in skeletal muscle when exposed to heat stress. High doses of either curcumin or astaxanthin limit heat-induced skeletal muscle injury, but a low-dose combination of these ingredients may increase their efficacy.

Physiological Need for Calcium, Iron, and Folic Acid for Women of Various Subpopulations During Pregnancy and Beyond.

Women tend to supplement their diets with multivitamin/mineral (MVM) supplements more often than men, and reports indicate that more than 90% of pregnant women in the United States supplement their diets with prenatal MVMs. Given the widespread use of MVMs among women and given the increasing efforts to unveil the importance of phenotype-specific health determinants, it seems imperative to review what is known about variations in nutrient physiology among women from different ethnic and racial groups and at different reproductive stages of life. In this study, we embark on an assessment of the scientific evidence and knowledge gaps that impact the precise determination of nutrient levels (specifically calcium, iron, and folic acid) that confer benefits to various subpopulations of women in the United States.

The Chemical Forms of Iron in Commercial Prenatal Supplements Are Not Always the Same as Those Tested in Clinical Trials.

In the US, 70% of pregnant women use an iron-containing prenatal supplement product; however, only 2.6% of pregnant women have iron-deficiency anemia and 16.3% are iron deficient. Yet, published data on the amounts and chemical forms of iron used in formulating these products are not available, although they are known to affect bioavailability. This information is especially important in comparing commercially available products with those that were tested in clinical trials. Our examination of nonprescription and prescription iron-containing prenatal supplement products in NIH's Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD) and DailyMed found the labeled amount of elemental iron ranged between 9 and 60 mg/serving in 148 nonprescription supplements and between 4.5 and 106 mg/serving in 101 prescription supplements. Ferrous fumarate was the preferred chemical form used in these products. In contrast, ferrous sulfate was the preferred chemical form of iron reported in the clinical trials summarized in a 2015 Cochrane Systematic review assessing the effects of daily oral iron supplements for pregnant women. Ferrous sulfate was not found on any prenatal supplement product label in the DSLD or DailyMed. The chemical forms of products on the market and those tested in clinical trials are dissimilar, and we believe this may have clinical implications. The findings raise several questions. Do outcomes in clinical trials correlate with the benefits and risks that might adhere to iron supplements with different iron formulations? Should the differences in chemical forms, their bioavailability, and safety profiles, be considered in greater depth when evaluating the effect of the various formulations on maternal iron nutriture? Should new clinical trials for pregnant and lactating women in the US use a form of iron not found in prenatal supplements sold in the US or should a more common form be used?

The vitamin D paradox in Black Americans: a systems-based approach to investigating clinical practice, research, and public health - expert panel meeting report.

The Office of Dietary Supplements, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, all components of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, co-sponsored an expert panel meeting to discuss the vitamin D paradox in Black Americans. The paradox is that despite markedly low (or "deficient") measures of vitamin D status in Black Americans, the incidence of falls, fractures, or osteopenia are significantly lower compared to White American counterparts with similar vitamin D status. Six panelists were invited to engage in guided discussions on the state of the science with respect to key knowledge gaps impacting vitamin D status and bone health. They were also asked to reflect on best approaches for advancing the science. A central theme throughout the discussions was that there may be many factors that impact Vitamin D levels in Black Americans and understanding these factors may be key to understanding mechanisms for improving bone health in all populations. Data presented showed that although adiposity, skin pigmentation, vitamin D binding protein polymorphisms, and genetics all contributed to differences in 25(OH)D levels in Black vs. White Americans, no one factor alone could fully explain the vitamin D paradox in Black Americans. However, the panelists did agree that the paradox is significant and warrants further investigation. There was consensus that Black Americans gained no skeletal benefits from high doses of vitamin D supplementation, and that high levels of the biomarker of vitamin D status, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D or 25(OH)D, in this population are almost certain to result in adverse effects. Some panelists proposed that additional studies are needed so that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) can better define the safe upper limits of vitamin D intake in this and other subpopulations. Others suggested a need for better, more generalizable biomarkers of bone health to advance the science.

Is Nutrient Content and Other Label Information for Prescription Prenatal Supplements Different from Nonprescription Products?

BACKGROUND: Prenatal supplements are often recommended to pregnant women to help meet their nutrient needs. Many products are available, making it difficult to choose a suitable supplement because little is known about their labeling and contents to evaluate their appropriateness. OBJECTIVE: To determine differences between prescription and nonprescription prenatal supplements available in the United States regarding declared nutrient and nonnutrient ingredients and the presence of dosing and safety-related information. DESIGN: Using two publicly available databases with information about prenatal supplement products, information from prescription and nonprescription product labels were extracted and evaluated. For the 82 prescription and 132 nonprescription products, declared label amounts of seven vitamins and minerals, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), the presence of other nonnutrient components, and the presence of key safety and informational elements as identified in two Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG)'s 2003 reports were compiled and compared. RESULTS: Compared with nonprescription products, prescription products contained significantly fewer vitamins (9±0.2 vs 11±0.3; P≤0.05) and minerals (4±0.1 vs 8±0.3; P≤0.05). Declared amounts of folic acid were higher in prescription products, whereas vitamin A, vitamin D, iodine, and calcium were higher in the nonprescription products. Amounts of iron, zinc, and DHA were similar. Virtually all products contained levels of one or more nutrients that exceeded the Recommended Dietary Allowances for pregnant and/or lactating women. Product type also influenced ingredients added. Fewer prescription products contained botanical ingredients (6% prescription vs 33% nonprescription) and probiotics (2% prescription vs 8% nonprescription). Only prescription products contained the stool softener docusate sodium. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of prenatal supplements indicates that prescription and nonprescription supplements differ in terms of declared composition and nutrient strength, but have labels that are similarly sparse regarding aspects of use such as dosing information.