Skip to content

Effectiveness of selenium supplements in a low-selenium area of China.

The American journal of clinical nutrition
Q1
Apr 2005
Citations:345
Influential Citations:13
Interventional (Human) Studies
83
S2 IconPDF Icon

Enhanced Details

Methods
Randomized placebo-controlled study in healthy adult men and women aged 18 years or older living in a selenium-deficient area of Mianning County, Sichuan Province, China. Each active selenium dose group was assigned 10 participants, and tablets were administered under supervision each morning for 20 weeks.
Intervention
This was a dose-ranging oral selenium tablet trial with two active forms: L-selenomethionine and sodium selenite. Each active group took one supervised tablet each morning for 20 weeks; measured tablet selenium contents ranged from 13 to 61 micrograms Se/day for selenomethionine and 15 to 66 micrograms Se/day for selenite, compared with placebo.
Results
Supplementation improved selenium biomarkers, but L-selenomethionine was more bioavailable and required a lower dose than sodium selenite to maximize glutathione peroxidase. Full expression of glutathione peroxidase was achieved with 37 micrograms Se/day as selenomethionine and with 66 micrograms Se/day as selenite, while selenoprotein P never reached full expression at the highest dose of either form. The highest average plasma selenium concentration reached 88 micrograms Se/L with selenomethionine versus 52 micrograms Se/L with selenite, and the highest average selenoprotein P concentration was only 75% of the US standard. The authors concluded that selenoprotein P may be a better biomarker of selenium status than glutathione peroxidase and that selenium from organic sources has substantially higher bioavailability.
Limitations
Small dose-group size, with 10 participants assigned to each active selenium group, limits precision. Some selenite dose groups were combined because they were indistinguishable, no arm-specific analyzed Ns were reported for the active groups, and effect sizes, confidence intervals, and adverse events were not reported. Follow-up was only 20 weeks and the outcomes were biochemical biomarkers rather than clinical endpoints.

Abstract

No abstract available