Circulating Ionized Magnesium: Comparisons with Circulating Total Magnesium and the Response to Magnesium Supplementation in a Randomized Controlled Trial
Rooney MR, Rudser KD, Alonso A, Harnack L, Saenger AK, Lutsey PL
Nutrients · 21 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Randomized controlled trial (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Nonprofit
- American Heart Association
- Nonprofit
- McKnight Foundation
- Government
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
- Government
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Government
- NHLBI NIH HHS
- Government
- NCATS NIH HHS
- Grants
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32HL007779); American Heart Association (T32HL007779); National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences ((UL1-TR002494)); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K24 HL148521); American Heart Association (16EIA26410001)
Based on 6 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2020-01-20 · Nutrients · vol. 12 · issue 1 · p. 263
- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Cited
- 32 citations · more than 89% of similar papers · 2.5× the field average
- References
- 19 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Magnesium in Health and Disease · Parathyroid Disorders and Treatments · Potassium and Related Disorders
- Keywords
- IMG, Magnesium, Placebo, Medicine, Population, Randomized controlled trial, Animal science, Internal medicine, Chemistry, Biology
- MeSH
- humans, magnesium oxide, administration, oral, pilot projects, double-blind method, nutritional status, time factors, dietary supplements, aged, middle aged, female, male
6 authors
From US
- Mary R. Rooney · correspondingUniversity of Minnesota; Johns Hopkins University
- Kyle D. RudserUniversity of Minnesota
- Álvaro AlonsoEmory University
- Lisa HarnackUniversity of Minnesota
- Amy K. SaengerHennepin Healthcare Research Institute
- Pamela L. LutseyUniversity of Minnesota
Abstract
Ionized Mg (iMg) is considered the biologically active fraction of circulating total Mg (tMg). It is possible that iMg may be a more physiologically relevant marker than tMg. Using data from a double-blind pilot randomized controlled trial, we tested (1) whether oral Mg supplementation will increase iMg concentrations compared with placebo and (2) the relationship between iMg and tMg at baseline. Additionally, we evaluated the agreement between iMg measured in fresh whole blood versus stored samples. A total of fifty-nine participants were randomized 1:1 to oral Mg supplementation (400 mg/day, Mg Oxide) or placebo for 10 weeks. Fasting blood samples were obtained at baseline and follow-up. The analysis used linear regression and an intent-to-treat approach. Participants were generally healthy, the mean age was 62, and 73% were female. The baseline iMg and tMg were modestly and positively associated (r = 0.50). The ratio of baseline iMg to tMg was 64%. The mean supplement effect on iMg was 0.03 mmol/L (95% CI:0.01, 0.05) for Mg supplementation versus placebo. The supplement effect on iMg was not statistically significantly different according to baseline iMg status (above/below median). Compared to fresh blood, iMg was consistently higher in refrigerated and frozen samples by 0.14 and 0.20 mmol/L, respectively. In this relatively healthy adult population, Mg supplementation over 10 weeks resulted in increased iMg concentrations. Whether iMg is a more appropriate measure of Mg status than tMg, and the public health or clinical utility of measuring iMg remains to be determined.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.