36 years of zinc research

Discuss herbal therapies, vitamins and minerals, bee stings, etc. here

36 years of zinc research

Postby jimmylegs » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:42 pm

a quick zinc meta analysis

1. Lower Serum Zinc Levels in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Compared to Healthy Controls (2018)

MS patients showed significantly lower zinc concentrations (mean (SD)) than HCs (12.5 (2.1) µmol/L vs. 14.6 (2.3) µmol/L, p < 0.001). In contrast, we did not find any difference between RMS (12.4 (2.0) µmol/L) and PMS (13.0 (3.0) µmol/L) cases (p = 0.8 ).


2. Zinc in Multiple Sclerosis (2016)

The result of the meta-analysis shows a reduction in serum or plasma Zn levels in patients with MS with a 95% CI of [−3.66, −0.93] and a p value of .001 for the difference in Zn concentration in μM. One of six studies measuring cerebrospinal fluid, Zn levels found a significant increase in patients with MS with controls. The studies measuring whole blood and erythrocyte Zn levels found up to several times higher levels of Zn in patients with MS compared with healthy controls with decreasing levels during attacks in relapsing-remitting MS patients.


focusing mostly on serum here. whole blood and RBC can have a turn later.

3. INVESTIGATION THE AMOUNT OF COPPER, LEAD, ZINC AND CADMIUM LEVELS IN SERUM OF IRANIAN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS PATIENTS (2015)

Table.3.Epidemiologic parameters and concentration of Zinc, Cadmium, Lead and Copper in blood serum (µg/L)

"Significantly higher serum Cu, Zn, and Cd levels were found in MS patients than in the controls (p<0.05)"

Characteristics..Case................Control
......................Mean(±SD)....median....Mean(±SD)....median
Zn..................72.9(±3.76)....73.3.......45.8(±4.28)...42.7


ie patient levels low normal, controls outright deficient. i'm thinking they accidentally reversed the patient and control groups' data here. either that or they did a pretty funky job of selecting controls.

4. Serum level of iron, zinc and copper in patients with multiple sclerosis (2013)

"Mean serum zinc levels were significantly decreased in MS patients (10.92 ± 2.114) as compared to these levels in the control group (14.05 ± 3.2)."
this study isn't indexed anywhere good. for starters, not specifying units is a disqualifier. looks like umol/l, if so numbers are consistent w Pawlitzski et al 2018

5. High copper and low zinc serum levels in Iranian patients with multiple sclerosis: a case control study. (2012)

"Significantly lower serum Zn and higher serum Cu levels were found in the MS patients compared with the controls (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.002, respectively). The serum Zn level of the secondary-progressive MS patients was significantly lower compared with the relapsing-remitting MS patients (p = 0.009)."

..............................pwMS................pwSPMS............pwRRMS..........Controls
Zn level (µg/dL)...40.17 ±31.89a...23.12 ±10.59c...42.06 ±32.94...127.77 ±42.2


makes sense to me. esp controls 127.77


6. Assessment of serum magnesium, copper, and zinc levels in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients (2007)

"Mean serum level of magnesium was 1.87 ± 0.37, copper 110.7 ± 19.5, and zinc 85.4 ± 13.5 in patients (control group), and 2.22 ± 0.24, 133.7 ± 13.4, and 110 ± 8.3 respectively in case group.

Conclusion: We found that serum level of magnesium, copper, and zinc is significantly decreased in patients inflicted with MS."


aaaand that's why you can't get indexed. methods specify "Thirty-five MS patients with definite diagnosis of MS" with "Control group was selected
from matched people of the same age and sex without diseases affecting serum copper, zinc, and magnesium levels."
results characterize the patients as the control group. that's not confusing 7:\
not to mention, even though the raw numbers look appropriate, again no units included. research fail.

7. Zinc in muliple sclerosis (1983)

"Plasma zinc levels were slightly increased in patients with multiple sclerosis and significantly increased in those with other neurological impairments (p <0.01), compared with control subjects. Albumin‐bound as well as protein‐bound zinc levels were normal in all groups tested. The α2 macroglobulin‐bound zinc level was significantly lower (p < 0.01) in patients with multiple sclerosis than in control subjects. Erythrocyte‐bound zinc levels were significantly increased (p < 0.05) in patients with multiple sclerosis when compared with control subjects. Erythrocyte‐bound zinc was normal in patients with other neurological impairments. Because erythrocyte‐bound zinc levels are relatively independent of daily fluctuations in dietary zinc intake, an increase in these values may suggest alterations in the control mechanisms governing zinc compartmentalization in patients with multiple sclerosis."

methods:
patients: clinically definite MS, no drugs, no treatments for any other medical problems
control subjects were healthy volunteers from within the university population
other neuro group included myasthenia gravis, guillain-barre syndrome, dementia, huntington's, etc.
Table I. Mean Values of Zn variables in PwMS, Controls and other neuro patients
group..........plasma zn (ug/dl)...serum zn (ug/dl).
pwms..........84.5......................83.1
controls.......78.8......................81.7
other neuro..96.2......................91.1


nobody's anywhere close to 120 ug/dl; as with Ghoreishi et al above, it is odd that the controls manifest lowest zinc levels. maybe the 'university population' is not the best representation of optimal zinc status in truly healthy controls

8. Trace Elements in Whole Blood of Multiple Sclerosis (1983)

"Zn values are greatly increased in MS patients (by 25-75%). The increase is higher in the relapsing form of MS than in the chronic form, suggesting some connection with the activity of the disease."


i have no access to this one, in order to check their numbers.

9. Zinc and copper in multiple sclerosis (1982)

"The serum concentrations of zinc and copper were measured in 50 patients with multiple sclerosis. Lower serum zinc levels were found compared to age- and sex-matched controls."

................Male wMS.....Male Controls.... Female wMS....Female Controls
Zn (umol/l) 13.0 ...........14.8 ................12.1 ..............13.2


i like 18.2 umol/l

and now for the tally:

...........................................low zn in ms ........ 'high'(ER) zn in ms
good data access and quality...#1 #4 #5 #9........#3 #7 (control levels deficient or low)
poor data access....................#2.......................#8 (can't access specifics for 8 )
poor data quality....................#6

conclusions:
in 4 of 4 studies with good data access and quality, zinc levels are low normal in pwms
in 8 of 9 studies regardless of access/quality, zinc levels are low normal in pwms
in 2 of 3 studies which suggest higher zinc in ms, reported control levels are either deficient or low normal
can't check the data for the third of three studies suggesting high zinc in ms.

so overall as regards serum, we have agreement with the 2016 analysis and further support given this year's findings.

next, to unpack the CNS and RBC pieces. not today mind you.
take control of your own health
pursue optimal self care at least as actively as a diagnosis
ask for referrals to preventive health care specialists eg dietitians
don't let suboptimal self care muddy any underlying diagnostic picture!
User avatar
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 11759
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:00 pm

Advertisement

Re: 36 years of zinc research

Postby jimmylegs » Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:56 pm

one more bit before getting into the other analyses

summary with units conversions
....patients....controls


1...12.5........14.6 umol/l /.153 v
.....81.7........95.4 ug/dl

2. no specifics

3. study units actually say ug/L. if they mean it, then conversions are as follows:
......1.1...........0.7 umol/l
......7.29.........4.58 ug/dl x.153 ^
so everyone is massively deficient. if they mean ug/dl, then this:
.....11.2..........7.0 umol/l
.....72.9........45.8 ug/dL x.153 ^
in this case, everyone's either very deficient (controls) or nearly so (patients).

4....10.9.........14.1 umol/l /.153 v
......71.2.........92.2 ug/dl

5......6.2.........19.6 umol/l
......40.2.......127.8 ug/dl x.153 ^
kinda makes it look like they got #3 patients and controls reversed doesn't it. it happens. i've confirmed that exact error in a breast cancer meta analysis.

6....13.1.........16.8 umol/l
......85.4.......110.0 ug/dl x.153 ^

7....12.9.........12.1 umol/l
......84.5........78.8 ug/dl x.153 ^
again, just because control levels suck too, doesn't mean pwms levels aren't

8. no data

9....13.0.........14.8 umol/l
......85.0.........96.7 ug/dl

......12.1.........13.2 umol/l
......79.1.........86.3 ug/dl

SO
patient range..........control range (not counting #3's errors and #7's odd 'controls')
..6.2 - 13.1 umol/l......13.2 - 19.6 umol/l
40.2 - 85 ug/dl..........86.3 - 127.8 ug/dl

i'm actually kind of amazed the means didn't overlap
take control of your own health
pursue optimal self care at least as actively as a diagnosis
ask for referrals to preventive health care specialists eg dietitians
don't let suboptimal self care muddy any underlying diagnostic picture!
User avatar
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 11759
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:00 pm

Re: 36 years of zinc research

Postby NHE » Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:55 pm

jimmylegs wrote:3. INVESTIGATION THE AMOUNT OF COPPER, LEAD, ZINC AND CADMIUM LEVELS IN SERUM OF IRANIAN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS PATIENTS (2015)
https://www.jchps.com/issues/Volume%208 ... chps%208(1)%208%20mohsenim%2040-45.pdf


You can fix the broken link by substituting %29 for ) as discussed below in the FAQ.

site-support-f2/topic5284-15.html#p139024
User avatar
NHE
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:00 pm


Return to Natural Approach

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service