Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Vitamin D


I get asked a lot in the office about whether people should be screened for vitamin D deficiency.  This is not something we learned to routinely do in medical school, but is more the "Vitamin of the Day" in pop culture.  It seems every few years, a different vitamin or supplement is the hot topic and is thought to prevent cancer, stop heart disease, or give an overall sense of well-being.  So, I set to work to investigate this topic, and decide who, if anyone, should be screened and treated for vitamin D deficiency.

To start off, vitamin D is important in helping your intestines to absorb calcium.  Calcium, as we all know, is vital for bone health, and deficiency can lead to osteoporosis and an increased risk for fractures.  You can get vitamin D in two ways:  it can be absorbed through the intestine (dietary sources, vitamin supplementation) or your skin can produce the active form of vitamin D through sunlight exposure.  So it naturally follows that those people who are not exposed to sunlight or who have poor dietary intake of vitamin D or poor intestinal absorption might become deficient.  

Let's talk about intestinal absorption of vitamin D first.  Vitamin D is found in many foods, including fortified milk (about 100 IU/cup), fatty fish, and eggs.  Some cereals and breads are also fortified.  You can also get vitamin D through supplements (usually in pill form).  People who have intestinal malabsorptive disorders such as celiac disease and Crohn's disease among others, have difficulty absorbing fat-soluble vitamins (such as vitamin D).  

People who are not exposed to sunlight are also at risk, because they are then unable to convert vitamin D to its active form.  No one knows exactly how much sun exposure is needed to produce adequate amounts, but it is thought that as little as 15 minutes per day of direct sunlight without sunscreen is enough.  Kidney and liver disease can also affect vitamin D levels because those organs are also responsible for the production of the active form of the vitamin.

The RDA for vitamin D is 600 IU/day, this is true for all people, ages 1-70, including pregnant or lactating women.  After age 71, the recommended amount increases to 800 IU/day.  The vitamin D content of breast milk is low, so many pediatricians also recommend supplementing exclusively breastfed infants.  I just checked my women's One-A-Day vitamin, and it has 1000 IU per tablet.

There are no recommendations from any major health organization to suggest that routine screening is necessary for vitamin D deficiency, nor is there agreement on what vitamin D level defines deficiency.  However, most people think that the minimum level should be 25-30 ng/mL.  You can have too much of a good thing, too.  Too much vitamin D can lead to pain and bone demineralization, too much calcium in the blood, and brain injury.  It seems you have to take a lot of the vitamin to see signs of intoxication (around 60,000 IU/day).   The upper limit of intake recommended by the Institute of Medicine is 4000 IU/day for adults.

At this point, groups at high risk for deficiency include those who are institutionalized (due to low sunlight exposure), dark-skinned individuals (decreased sunlight absorption), and those with intestinal malabsorption.  If you are found to have a vitamin D deficiency, you should supplement, and recheck the levels in about 3-4 months.  For most people, though, meeting the RDA of vitamin D is sufficient.

If calcium intake isn't adequate, vitamin D will likely not improve bone health.  For that reason, all adults  should make sure they are getting 1000-1200 mg of calcium per day.

It should also be noted that although there is much speculation that vitamin D deficiency could lead to heart disease, cancers, diabetes, and cognitive impairment, no well-designed studies have proven a link.

Here's a helpful link for more information:

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Cord Blood Banking

After a long holiday hiatus, I'm back...

Recently, I've had a few couples in my office ask about cord blood banking.  This seems to be one of those topics that people hear about, but don't really know if they should consider.  I'm going to try to help sort it all out...

Cord blood has what are called "hematopoietic stem cells".  These are cells that are the precursors to all blood cells, so if for some reason your bone marrow was wiped out, these cells could be transplanted to help regenerate your blood.  The situations in which cord blood transplants have been used include inborn errors of metabolism, cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma, and other genetic disorders like sickle cell anemia.  These same hematopoietic stem cells are present in our bone marrow, they continue to replenish our own blood cells, and can be donated through bone marrow aspiration.



The benefit of using cord blood instead of bone marrow is that it is obviously MUCH less painful to procure the cells, and there is a decreased incidence of transplant rejection.  The only disadvantage is that there are fewer stem cells in cord blood than in bone marrow, so multiple units often have to be pooled to be used for adult bone marrow transplants.

It is easy to collect cord blood at the time of delivery.  If you're interested, you just call a company that stores the blood, and request a collection kit.  After the baby is born, but before the placenta is delivered, a needle is used to puncture an umbilical vein and the cord is drained of blood into a bag, which is then returned to the facility for storage.  There is no pain involved.

Before collection, though, you have to decide how and where you want it to be stored.  There are public and private cord blood banks.  Public banks are like blood banks.  The blood is collected, and is available to anyone who needs it - as long as they are a match.  This is just like donating your blood or signing up to be an organ or bone marrow donor.  There is no charge to collect or store cord blood in a public bank.  Similar to donating blood, potential donors are screened prior to donation, and not everyone qualifies.  This blood is not directly linked to the donor, so if your family member would need stem cells, there is no way to ensure that your cord blood is given to them.

Private banks store the cord blood for a fee, to be used only by the donor or his/her relatives.  The chance that a family member would actually use a stored unit of cord blood is relatively rare, about 1 in 2700.  This would be a good idea, though,  if there is already a known disease that can be treated with hematopoietic stem cells in a family member. There is a collection fee and yearly storage fees.  The collection fee is around $2000, with an annual storage fee of around $125.   Many of these facilities are "for-profit".  I want to note that I have no financial or other interests in private cord blood banks.



It's also important to note that it is not known how long cord blood can be stored.

Another new development is the ability to collect umbilical cord tissue which contains mesenchymal stem cells that can be used to grow cartilage, tendon, and bone.  This is an area of research, and there are no current therapies using cord tissue.  Cord tissue is only stored in private banks at this time.

There are several good websites to get more information:

American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology
http://www.acog.org/~/media/For%20Patients/faq172.ashx?dmc=1&ts=20120117T1033244345

National Marrow Donor Program
http://marrow.org/Get_Involved/Donate_Cord_Blood/How_to_Donate/Where_to_Donate.aspx

National Cord Blood Program
http://www.nationalcordbloodprogram.org/donation/public_vs_private_donation.html

Private banks:

Cord Blood Registry (CBR)
http://www.cordblood.com/

Cryo-Cell International
http://www.cryo-cell.com/

ViaCord
http://www.viacord.com/

Hope this helps those of you who are trying to decide whether this is right for you...