Serum vitamin B12 not reflecting vitamin B12 status in patients with type 2 diabetes

Contradictory results for concentrations of vitamin B12, holotranscobalamin (holoTC), and methylmalonic acid (MMA) have been reported. We tested the hypothesis that the extracellular vitamin B12 markers are not reflecting the intracellular vitamin B12-dependent biochemical reactions in individuals with type 2 diabetes. The study included 92 patients with diabetes and 72 controls with similar age and sex distribution. We measured vitamin B12 markers [MMA, total serum vitamin B12, holoTC, total homocysteine (tHcy)], red blood cell (RBC)-B12, and the plasma concentrations of the methylation markers [S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) and S-adenosylhomocysteine (SAH)]. In comparison to controls, diabetic patients showed significantly higher concentrations of plasma SAH (median 15.1 vs. 11.8 nmol/L; p < 0.001) and lower SAM/SAH ratio (9.1 vs. 8.2; p = 0.006). Concentrations of total vitamin B12 and holoTC did not differ significantly between the groups, but plasma MMA concentrations were significantly higher in diabetics (250 vs. 206 nmol/L). However, RBC-B12 was lower in diabetics compared to controls (median 230 vs. 260 pmol/L; p = 0.001). The inverse correlation between MMA and RBC-B12 was stronger in the controls compared to that in the patients (correlation coefficient in controls R = −0.446, p = 0.001; in patients R = −0.289, p = 0.022). Metformin treatment was associated with a lower total serum vitamin B12, but a comparable RBC-B12 and a slightly lower MMA and better methylation index. In conclusion, patients with type 2 diabetes showed normal extracellular vitamin B12, but disturbed intracellular B12-dependent biochemical reactions. Metformin treatment was associated with low serum vitamin B12 and improved intracellular vitamin B12 metabolism despite low serum vitamin B12.     

Diagnosis and management of clinical and subclinical cobalamin deficiencies: Why controversies persist in the age of sensitive metabolic testing

In the past two decades, sensitive biochemical tests have uncovered cobalamin deficiency much more frequently than ever before. Almost all cases involve mild, biochemical changes without clinical manifestations (subclinical cobalamin deficiency; SCCD), whose health impact is unclear. Because the causes of SCCD are most often unknown, nonmalabsorptive, and seldom documented, controversy and confusion surround the diagnostic criteria and, inevitably, consequences and management of SCCD. To complicate matters, our grasp of the rarer clinical deficiency, usually a serious, progressive medical disease rooted in severe malabsorption, has receded as absorption testing has disappeared. Reexamining the accumulation of assumptions and misperceptions about cobalamin deficiency and distinguishing SCCD from clinical deficiency is long overdue. The biology of cobalamin provides an important starting point: cobalamin stores exceed daily losses so greatly and binding proteins regulate absorption so effectively that deficiency typically achieves clinical expression only after years of severe, relentless malabsorption. Dietary insufficiency, mild, partial malabsorption, and other incomplete, intermittent causes can usually produce only SCCD. Thus, the most fundamental difference between the two deficiencies is the relentlessness of the underlying cause, which determines prognosis and health impact. Inattention to absorptive status has exacerbated the limitations of biochemical testing. All the biochemical tests are highly sensitive but specificity is poor, no diagnostic gold standard exists, and diagnostic cutpoints fluctuate excessively. To limit the adverse diagnostic consequences, the diagnosis of SCCD, whose need for treatment is unclear, should be deferred unless at least two tests are abnormal. Indeed, cobalamin biology indicates that the absorption system, while enhancing cobalamin delivery, also sets a strict upper limit on it, which suggests that cobalamin excess is undesirable. Solving cobalamin deficiency requires balanced assessment of the different imperatives of clinical and public health concerns, better rationalization of diagnostic testing, consistent definitions of normality in relation to SCCD, and rational cutpoint selection.