beta-Carotene deficiency in cholestatic liver disease of childhood is caused by beta-carotene malabsorption

A systematic review of dietary and circulating carotenoids and liver disease

Background: due to the high incidence of liver disease and the severity of adverse outcomes, liver disease has become a serious public health problem, bringing a huge disease burden to individuals, families, and society. Most studies have shown significant differences in serum carotenoid content and dietary carotenoid intake between liver disease patients and non-liver disease patients, but some studies have reported contrary results. This paper aimed to systematically review and analyze all published epidemiological studies on carotenoids and liver disease to quantitatively assess the relationship between serum and dietary carotenoid concentrations and liver disease. Methods: by systematically searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases according to pre-combined search terms from inception to July 23, 2024, 30 studies were found to meet the exclusion criteria. Finally, 3 RCT studies, 6 cohort studies, 11 case-control studies, 9 cross-sectional studies, and 1 RCT-combined cross-sectional study were included in the further analysis. Two reviewers independently scored the literature quality and extracted data, and the results were represented by the standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval. Cochran Q statistics and I2 statistics were used to evaluate statistical heterogeneity (defined as significant when P < 0.05 or I2 > 50%). When there was insignificant heterogeneity, a fixed effects model was selected; otherwise a random effects model was used. Publication bias was assessed by the Egger test. Results: pooled meta-analysis showed that serum α-carotene (SMD = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.83, -0.32), P < 0.001), β-carotene (SMD = -0.81, 95% CI (-1.13, -0.49), P < 0.001), and lycopene (SMD = -1.06, 95% CI (-1.74, -0.38), P < 0.001) were negatively correlated with the risk and severity of liver disease. However, no significant difference was observed between serum β-cryptoxanthin (SMD = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.41, 0.45), P = 0.92) and lutein/zeaxanthin (SMD = 0.62, 95% CI (-1.20, 2.45), P = 0.502). Dietary β-carotene intake (SMD = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.31, -0.13), P < 0.001) was negatively associated with the risk of liver disease. The Egger test showed no publication bias (P > 0.05). An intake of more than 6 mg of carotenoids on an energy-restricted diet can effectively alleviate the symptoms of NAFLD. Conclusion: lower serum concentrations of α-carotene, β-carotene, and lycopene were associated with a higher risk of liver disease. Meanwhile, dietary intake of β-carotene could reduce the incidence of liver disease. However, for malignant diseases such as liver cancer, it did not show the significant effects of carotenoid supplementation.

Nutrition Support of Children With Chronic Liver Diseases: A Joint Position Paper of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition

Chronic liver disease places patients at increased risk of malnutrition that can be challenging to identify clinically and treat. Nutrition support is a key aspect of the management of these patients as it has an impact on their quality of life, morbidity, and mortality. There are significant gaps in the literature regarding the optimal nutrition support for patients with different types of liver diseases and the impact of these interventions on long-term outcomes. This Position Paper summarizes the available literature on the nutritional aspects of the care of patients with chronic liver diseases. Specifically, the challenges associated with the nutritional assessment of these subjects are discussed, and recently investigated approaches to determining the patients' nutritional status are reviewed. Furthermore, the pathophysiology of the malnutrition seen in the context of chronic liver disease is summarized and monitoring, as well as treatment, recommendations are provided. Lastly, suggestions for future research studies are described.

Vitamin A and beta (β)-carotene supplementation for cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

People with cystic fibrosis (CF) and pancreatic insufficiency are at risk of a deficiency in fat-soluble vitamins, including vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency predominantly causes eye and skin problems, while excessive levels of vitamin A can harm the respiratory and skeletal systems in children and interfere with the metabolism of other fat-soluble vitamins. Most CF centres administer vitamin A as supplements to reduce the frequency of vitamin A deficiency in people with CF and to improve clinical outcomes such as growth, although the recommended dose varies between different guidelines. Thus, a systematic review on vitamin A and vitamin A-like supplementation (carotenes or other retinoids) in people with CF would help guide clinical practice. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if supplementation with vitamin A, carotenes or other retinoid supplements in children and adults with CF reduces the frequency of vitamin A deficiency disorders, improves general and respiratory health and affects the frequency of vitamin A toxicity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Additionally we searched several ongoing trials registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry.Most recent database searches: 01 June 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies comparing all preparations of oral vitamin A, carotenes or retinoids (or in combination), used as a supplement compared to placebo at any dose, for at least three months, in people with CF (diagnosed by sweat tests or genetic testing) with and without pancreatic insufficiency.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors individually assessed study quality and extracted data on outcome measures. The authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system. Investigators were contacted to retrieve missing quantitative data.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies of vitamin A or other retinoid supplementation were eligible for inclusion. However, one randomised study of beta (β)-carotene supplementation involving 24 people with CF who were receiving pancreatic enzyme substitution was included. The study compared successive β-carotene supplementation periods (high dose followed by low dose) compared to placebo. The results for the low-dose supplementation period should be interpreted with caution, due to the lack of a wash-out period after the high-dose supplementation.The included study did not report on two of the review's primary outcomes (vitamin A deficiency disorders and mortality); results for our third primary outcome of growth and nutritional status (reported as z score for height) showed no difference between supplementation and placebo, mean difference (MD) -0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.89 to 0.43) (low-quality evidence). With regards to secondary outcomes, supplementation with high-dose β-carotene for three months led to significantly fewer days of systemic antibiotics required to treat pulmonary exacerbations, compared to controls, MD -15 days (95% CI -27.60 to -2.40); however, this was not maintained in the second three-month section of the study when the level of β-carotene supplementation was reduced, MD -8 days (95% CI -18.80 to 2.80) (low-quality evidence). There were no statistically significant effects between groups in lung function (low-quality evidence) and no adverse events were observed (low-quality evidence). Supplementation affected levels of β-carotene in plasma, but not vitamin A levels. The study did not report on quality of life or toxicity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since no randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies on retinoid supplementation were identified, no conclusion on the supplementation of vitamin A in people with CF can be drawn. Additionally, due to methodological limitations in the included study, also reflected in the low-quality evidence judged following the specific evidence grading system (GRADE), no clear conclusions on β-carotene supplementation can be drawn. Until further data are available, country- or region-specific guidelines regarding these practices should be followed.

Host-related factors explaining interindividual variability of carotenoid bioavailability and tissue concentrations in humans

Carotenoid dietary intake and their endogenous levels have been associated with a decreased risk of several chronic diseases. There are indications that carotenoid bioavailability depends, in addition to the food matrix, on host factors. These include diseases (e.g. colitis), life-style habits (e.g. smoking), gender and age, as well as genetic variations including single nucleotide polymorphisms that govern carotenoid metabolism. These are expected to explain interindividual differences that contribute to carotenoid uptake, distribution, metabolism and excretion, and therefore possibly also their association with disease risk. For instance, digestion enzymes fostering micellization (PNLIP, CES), expression of uptake/efflux transporters (SR-BI, CD36, NPC1L1), cleavage enzymes (BCO1/2), intracellular transporters (FABP2), secretion into chylomicrons (APOB, MTTP), carotenoid metabolism in the blood and liver (LPL, APO C/E, LDLR), and distribution to target tissues such as adipose tissue or macula (GSTP1, StARD3) depend on the activity of these proteins. In addition, human microbiota, e.g. via altering bile-acid concentrations, may play a role in carotenoid bioavailability. In order to comprehend individual, variable responses to these compounds, an improved knowledge on intra-/interindividual factors determining carotenoid bioavailability, including tissue distribution, is required. Here, we highlight the current knowledge on factors that may explain such intra-/interindividual differences.