Posted on 04/28/2010 6:35:01 PM PDT by decimon
Patients with diabetic nephropathy, kidney disease caused by diabetes and treated with high doses of vitamin B, suffered rapid deterioration of the kidneys, a recent study has found.
Diabetics in addition to kidney function loss also were affected by higher rates of heart attack and stroke than those who took a placebo, according to the clinical research in the April 28 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
Diabetic nephropathy affects the network of tiny blood vessels in the glomerulus, a structure in the kidney made of capillary blood vessels, which is needed to filter blood.
Despite a range of treatments to curb the progression of the disease, about 40 percent of the 21 million Americans who have diabetes develop diabetic nephropathy so a new approach to treatment is needed, the authors of the study said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
To B or not ping.
I stopped taking a multi-vitamin pack that I have taken intermittently for years. It took me a long time to narrow it down: I think that the vitamin B was causing problems. Supposedly, high levels of vitamin B can be as hard on your system, esp. liver and kidneys, as alcohol.
Hmmm.
Only 238 patients, both Type I and Type II, for less than three years.
Pretty weak. I would like to keep the Type II’s separate since their diabetes is caused in such a different way than Type I.
This really doesn’t tell your average person much of anything.
FReepmail me if you want on or off the diabetes ping list. FReebie of unfortunate results. When I saw the AFP title, I was expecting something about lower thiamin, B1.
Wow, I take B100 or 150 everyday.
ping
No, but it does tell folks with diabetic nephropathy not to buy any snake oil with pharmacologic doses of folic acid, B6 and B12.
They used 2.5 mg of folic acid! That’s way too much.
Use maybe 400 mcg of folic acid, or preferable 5-mthf.
Interesting. I have been taking MEGADOSES of B vitamins in the form of “5 Hour Energy” and I haven’t seen any issues from it. I am Type 2.
What's that? There are a bunch of different B vitamins.
Not really.
I have family history with diabetes, but it is all Type II.
Was it the Type I or Type II or both that this happened to? Was it evenly divided? How many Type I with kidney problems? How many Type II? Or was there only one Type II?
Doesn’t say. The Types aren’t interchangeable. Different conditions cause them to exist. It matters, as far as I know and understand.
That is the problem with studies like this. Scare people out of vitamins, with not a lot of science behind it. This is a VERY SMALL case study.
I find it inconclusive. And with the broadness of their pronouncement, it concerns me this is done with such little evidence. It is not good science.
Remember that the AMA pushed for Obamacare.
I forget which ones cause problems. My brother-in-law first told me this (he’s a doctor, and also researches these kinds of issues — unlike most doctors!), but I forget the details. His rule of thumb was that if you don’t get any side effects, don’t worry about it. But apparently some people are just much more sensitive than others.
Personally, I would get chronic nausea, coupled with lethargy and other mild symptoms. Nothing too major, but enough to make me feel not quite right (and also easy to blame on other things). Plus, I had elevated liver enzyme levels that have since gone away.
He said its not at all uncommon, and usually not serious. Just common sense. I switched to a different multi-vitamin and everything is fine.
Going back to the article, it does make me wonder if they test for vitamin b sensitivity (if there is such a test), before making these blanket statements.
Type II can drift over into Type I ~ not going to happen to everybody, but for some folks they are not really different diseases.
The damage that diabetes does is the same, but their underlying causes are different. Type II is more insulin resistance, than lack of insulin at all. That is very different. Type II can have too much insulin running around and it NOT being picked up by it’s receptors. Type I does not have that problem.
B-Complex 100
Was it the Type I or Type II or both that this happened to? Was it evenly divided? How many Type I with kidney problems? How many Type II? Or was there only one Type II?
"Participants were predominantly men (178 [74.8%]) and white (198 [83.2%]), with type 2 diabetes (195 [81.9%])."
Doesn’t say. The Types aren’t interchangeable. Different conditions cause them to exist. It matters, as far as I know and understand.
The complications of both types of diabetes are very similar. Have you heard nephrologists say that there are significant differences in diabetic nephropathy between the two types?
That is the problem with studies like this. Scare people out of vitamins, with not a lot of science behind it. This is a VERY SMALL case study.
This is, "a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial."
I find it inconclusive. And with the broadness of their pronouncement, it concerns me this is done with such little evidence. It is not good science.
Results are results. They failed to validate the homocysteine hypothesis of atherosclerosis despite lowering homocysteine levels and got a, "greater decrease in GFR," i.e. worse kidney function, and "an increase in vascular events."
“The complications of both types of diabetes are very similar.”
I believe I said something similar in this thread.
“This is, “a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.””
I am a lay person. 238 is a small number for a study of this kind.
“...failed to validate the homocysteine hypothesis ..”
Ah, ok. That is not what is important to me as a female with Type II history in my mom’s family. Besides, there is already a history in her family of an increase in “vascular events”. Most of them have had heart surgery without taking B vitamins. That would be nothing new for my families history. The only sibling who hasn’t had heart surgery gave blood most of her life to help others with RH negative blood. Maybe there was something to all that blood letting thing after all.
Don't think like you should expect sample sizes similar to the sizes used in political polls. It's apples and oranges to compare political and scientific sample sizes. These results are also expressed in terms of probability using the term 'P'. Here's the results:
"Results The mean (SD) follow-up during the trial was 31.9 (14.4) months. At 36 months, radionuclide GFR decreased by a mean (SE) of 16.5 (1.7) mL/min/1.73 m2 in the B-vitamin group compared with 10.7 (1.7) mL/min/1.73 m2 in the placebo group (mean difference, –5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], –10.6 to –1.1; P = .02). There was no difference in requirement of dialysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1; 95% CI, 0.4-2.6; P = .88). The composite outcome occurred more often in the B-vitamin group (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-4.0; P = .04). Plasma total homocysteine decreased by a mean (SE) of 2.2 (0.4) µmol/L at 36 months in the B-vitamin group compared with a mean (SE) increase of 2.6 (0.4) µmol/L in the placebo group (mean difference, –4.8; 95% CI, –6.1 to –3.7; P < .001, in favor of B vitamins)."
P = .02 means that you expect that result 2 times out of 100 just by chance
P = .88 means that you expect that result 88 times out of 100 just by chance
P = .04 means that you expect that result 4 times out of 100 just by chance
P < .001 means that you expect that result less than 1 time out of 1000 just by chance.
At most these mega doses of B Vitamins didn't help. The numbers scream obvious harm. Check out the null hypothesis in any search engine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.