Full Text

Turn on search term navigation

1. Introduction

Phenylketonuria (PKU) is an inborn error of amino acid metabolism caused by mutations in the phenylalanine hydroxylase gene (PAH) [1]. It has a global prevalence of 1 in 23,930 live births, ranging from 1 in 4500 (Italy) to 1 in 125,000 (Japan) [2]. Normally, PAH catalyses the conversion of phenylalanine to tyrosine by the para-hydroxylation of the aromatic side chain [3], but the deficiency or absence of the liver enzyme PAH impairs this hydroxylation. Blood phenylalanine accumulates in toxic concentrations in the brain and leads to irreversible intellectual disabilities, behavioural abnormalities, motor dysfunctions and other health issues [4]. In 1953, Bickel et al. [5] first reported the efficacy of a diet low in phenylalanine in a child diagnosed with PKU, making it the first metabolic disorder that could be treated by a special diet. Since neurological damage occurs early after birth, it is strongly advocated to start treatment at up to 10 days of age [6]. Two milestones in PKU treatment are the early identification of the condition and the ongoing commitment to a carefully controlled dietary regimen throughout the patient’s life. The main goal is to strike a balance that ensures adequate nutrition while preventing the toxic accumulation of phenylalanine. This is achieved through the strict control of natural protein/phenylalanine intake, supplying essential amino acids by substituting natural proteins with phenylalanine-free amino acid mixtures and attaining normal growth and nutritional status [7]. Systematic follow-up, the close monitoring of phenylalanine intake, regular blood tests, and adjustments to the diet or medical formula are vital aspects of this treatment [8].

PKU patients must be supplemented with medical food substitutes containing the correct mix of essential amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and trace nutrients that would ordinarily be consumed in restricted foods [1]. However, similar to other chronic diseases, treatment adherence tends to decline over time [9,10]. Despite the broader availability of various medical foods, specialised low-protein foods, and approved medications, adhering to recommended phenylalanine goals continues to be a challenge, particularly for adolescents and older patients [9,11,12,13]. This could stem from a lack of understanding regarding dietary restrictions, low motivation to comply with treatment, challenges in coping with the disease [14], organoleptic properties of Phe-free food, the cost of formulated end products [15], psychosocial and emotional factors, family cohesion issues, parental commitment to sustaining the diet, understanding the disease, attitudes to healthcare professionals, and a lack of reimbursement of special dietary foods (in some healthcare systems) [4,16].

PKU patients may be at risk of developing deficiencies in various nutrients, including vitamins D [17,18], B12 [19,20,21,22], K [23], as well as zinc and selenium [22,24]. Vitamins play pivotal roles in various physiological processes, and any disturbances in their levels may have significant implications for overall health. Therefore, it is crucial to assess the impact of the PKU dietary regimen on vitamin status in these individuals. However, studies examining the vitamin status of PKU patients have reported conflicting findings. Some studies found elevated vitamin levels in PKU patients [17,25,26], while others have reported lower levels [27,28,29]. Additionally, certain studies found no significant differences in vitamin levels between PKU patients and healthy controls [30,31,32]. Given these contradictory results, this systematic review aims to comprehensively assess the vitamin status in patients with PKU compared to healthy individuals. We hypothesised that patients with PKU exhibited no differences in vitamin levels compared to healthy controls.

2. Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the vitamin status of patients with PKU compared to healthy controls.

2.1. Protocol and Registration

This study presentation followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [33] and the Cochrane [34] guidelines. It is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42024519589 [35].

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The search strategy was limited to human studies published in English in a peer-reviewed journal. Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis comprised both observational and intervention-based studies. These studies had to specifically compare vitamin levels between individuals diagnosed with PKU in the neonatal period, necessitating a phenylalanine-restricted diet and early treatment, and healthy individuals. To be considered, studies had to provide extractable data of interest, including an identified number of participants, their characteristics, and vitamin data for both groups.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: studies involving pregnant and lactating women; investigations focused on untreated PKU; hyperphenylalaninemia; studies where the control group was supplemented with vitamins under review; PKU patients receiving tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4) or pegvaliase; and conference publications and abstract-only papers.

2.3. Data Collection Process, Extraction and Analysis

The references were managed using Zotero, which is an open-source reference management software (Zotero, version 6.0.30, https://www.zotero.org/, accessed on 10 February 2024). The data selection process involved independent reviewers (K.B. and M.J.) who assessed publications based on predefined exclusion and inclusion criteria and occurred over three stages: the initial screening of the title, followed by examination of the abstract, and, finally, a comprehensive review of the full text. Screening titles and abstracts of the retrieved papers led to the exclusion of duplicates and clearly ineligible studies. Any study deemed valuable by at least one of the analysts proceeded to the next stage. In instances of uncertainties or disagreements during the selection process, a consensus was reached within the review team [33].

Each publication underwent a rigorous critical analysis, and the authors were contacted for clarification if any articles lacked information on the time of PKU diagnosis. Meta-analyses were performed to examine the evidence concerning the vitamin status of individuals with PKU and to assess the variations compared to the healthy population. This systematic review presented results for vitamins that were assessed in at least two identified studies. Quantitative analysis was performed in the form of meta-analysis.

2.4. Data Item

The following information was extracted from each included article:

  • General information: the title of the article, journal name, main author, and publication year.

  • Study characteristics: the study name and design, country (region), and sample size (total number of subjects and the number in each group who were included and completed the study).

  • Study population characteristics: age, sex, body mass index (BMI, kg/m2).

  • Description of dietary treatment: natural protein intake (g/day), protein substitute intake (g/day), total protein intake (g/day), phenylalanine intake (mg/d), annual mean/median phenylalanine levels (μmol/L), follow-up (yes or no), treatment adherence (yes or no), phenylalanine levels (μmol/L), tyrosine levels (μmol/L), and total protein levels (g/dL).

  • Main outcomes: blood or plasma levels of folate (nmol/L), folic acid (nmol/L), erythrocyte folate (nmol/L), total folate (nmol/L), vitamin B12 (pmol/L), 25-hydroxyvitamin D (nmol/L), 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (nmol/L), cholecalciferol (nmol/L), 1,25-hydroxyvitamin D (nmol/L), vitamin A (μmol/L), beta-carotene (μmol/L), vitamin E (μmol/L), erythrocyte tocopherol (μmol/L), vitamin B6 (μmol/L), vitamin K (μmol/L), vitamin C (μmol/L), and biotin (ng/L).

If the levels of a vitamin were not analysed in any of the included papers, it was not considered in this study.

2.5. Information Sources and Search Strategy

The databases PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies providing data on vitamin status (blood levels) in PKU patients compared to healthy controls in March 2024. The analysis encompassed experimental (randomised or non-randomised controlled trials) and observational (case–control and cross-sectional studies) studies without restrictions on publication year. References from previous review articles and the reference lists of the relevant papers were examined to identify any studies that might have been overlooked and any relevant articles that might not have been captured by the initial database search.

In developing the search strategy, we employed a rigorous approach to identify relevant keywords, synonyms, and subject-indexing terms. Our process began with a review of the existing literature related to the topic of interest. Through this initial exploration, we identified key terms commonly used in the field, such as “PKU”, “phenylketonuria”, “vitamin”, “diet”, and “nutrition”. Additionally, we reviewed previously published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field to identify additional relevant terms and concepts. The terms in the titles and keywords of published articles were screened. We also expanded our scope to include synonyms and alternative terminology associated with PKU and vitamins. This involved consulting medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and databases of synonyms. The index terms were as follows:

Cochrane: “phenylketonuria” OR “phenylalanine hydroxylase deficiency” OR “phenylalanine hydroxylase deficient” OR “PKU” OR “hyperphenylalaninaemia” OR “BH4 deficiency” OR “BH4 deficient” OR “tetrahydrobiopterin deficiency” OR “tetrahydrobiopterin deficient” OR “PAH deficiency” OR “PAH deficient” OR “phenylketonuric” OR “hyperphenylalaninaemic” in Title Abstract Keyword AND “dietary” OR “supplement” OR “supplementations” OR “supplementation” OR “nutritional” OR “nutrition” OR “diet” OR “diets” OR “vitamin” OR “vitamins” OR “vitaminization” OR “vitaminisation” OR “nutrient” OR “nutrients” OR “micronutrient” OR “micronutrients” OR “fat-soluble” OR “fat soluble” OR “water soluble” OR “water-soluble” OR “calciferol” OR “cholecalciferol” OR “colecalciferol” OR “ergocalciferol” OR “dihydroxycholecalciferol” OR “1,25(OH)2D” OR “hydroxyvitamin” OR “25(OH)D” OR “hydroxyergocalciferol” OR “tocopherol” OR “tocopherols” OR “antioxidant” OR “antioxidants” OR “carotenoid” OR “carotenoids” OR “retinol” OR “retinal” OR “retinoic” OR “retinyl” OR “carotene” OR “provitamin” OR “provitamins” OR “phytomenadione” OR “phytonadione” OR “menaquinone” OR “menadione” OR “thiamine” OR “thiamin” OR “aneurin” OR “riboflavin” OR “niacinamide” OR “niacin” OR “nicotinic” OR “nicotinamide” OR “pantothenic” OR “pyridoxine” OR “pyridoxal” OR “pyridoxamine” OR “biotin” OR “folic” OR “folate” OR “folacin” OR “pteroylglutamic” OR “Pteroyl-L-glutamate” OR “Pteroyl-L-glutamic” OR “cobalamin” OR “cobalamins” OR “cobalamine” OR “cobalamines” OR “cyanocobalamin” OR “cyanocobalamine” OR “ascorbic” OR “ascorbate” OR “choline” in the title, abstract and keywords sections—(March 2024).

PubMed: (“phenylketonuria” OR “phenylalanine hydroxylase deficiency” OR “phenylalanine hydroxylase deficient” OR “PKU” OR “hyperphenylalaninaemia” OR “BH4 deficiency” OR “BH4 deficient” OR “tetrahydrobiopterin deficiency” OR “tetrahydrobiopterin deficient” OR “PAH deficiency” OR “PAH deficient” OR “phenylketonuric” OR “hyperphenylalaninaemic” [MeSH Terms]) AND (“dietary” OR “supplement” OR “supplementations” OR “supplementation” OR “nutritional” OR “nutrition” OR “diet” OR “diets” OR “vitamin” OR “vitamins” OR “vitaminization” OR “vitaminisation” OR “nutrient” OR “nutrients” OR “micronutrient” OR “micronutrients” OR “fat-soluble” OR “fat soluble” OR “water soluble” OR “water-soluble” OR “calciferol” OR “cholecalciferol” OR “colecalciferol” OR “ergocalciferol” OR “dihydroxycholecalciferol” OR “1,25(OH)2D” OR “hydroxyvitamin” OR “25(OH)D” OR “hydroxyergocalciferol” OR “tocopherol” OR “tocopherols” OR “antioxidant” OR “antioxidants” OR “carotenoid” OR “carotenoids” OR “retinol” OR “retinal” OR “retinoic” OR “retinyl” OR “carotene” OR “provitamin” OR “provitamins” OR “phytomenadione” OR “phytonadione” OR “menaquinone” OR “menadione” OR “thiamine” OR “thiamin” OR “aneurin” OR “riboflavin” OR “niacinamide” OR “niacin” OR “nicotinic” OR “nicotinamide” OR “pantothenic” OR “pyridoxine” OR “pyridoxal” OR “pyridoxamine” OR “biotin” OR “folic” OR “folate” OR “folacin” OR “pteroylglutamic” OR “pteroyl-L-glutamate” OR “Pteroyl-L-glutamic” OR “cobalamin” OR “cobalamins” OR “cobalamine” OR “cobalamines” OR “cyanocobalamin” OR “cyanocobalamine” OR “ascorbic” OR “ascorbate” OR “choline” [MeSH Terms])—(March 2024).

Scopus: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“phenylketonuria” OR “phenylalanine hydroxylase deficiency” OR “phenylalanine hydroxylase deficient” OR “PKU” OR “hyperphenylalaninaemia” OR “BH4 deficiency” OR “BH4 deficient” OR “tetrahydrobiopterin deficiency” OR “tetrahydrobiopterin deficient” OR “PAH deficiency” OR “PAH deficient” OR “phenylketonuric” OR “hyperphenylalaninaemic”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“dietary” OR “supplement” OR “supplementations” OR “supplementation” OR “nutritional” OR “nutrition” OR “diet” OR “diets” OR “vitamin” OR “vitamins” OR “vitaminization” OR “vitaminisation” OR “nutrient” OR “nutrients” OR “micronutrient” OR “micronutrients” OR “fat-soluble” OR “fat soluble” OR “water soluble” OR “water-soluble” OR “calciferol” OR “cholecalciferol” OR “colecalciferol” OR “ergocalciferol” OR “dihydroxycholecalciferol” OR “1,25(OH)2D” OR “hydroxyvitamin” OR “25(OH)D” OR “hydroxyergocalciferol” OR “tocopherol” OR “tocopherols” OR “antioxidant” OR “antioxidants” OR “carotenoid” OR “carotenoids” OR “retinol” OR “retinal” OR “retinoic” OR “retinyl” OR “carotene” OR “provitamin” OR “provitamins” OR “phytomenadione” OR “phytonadione” OR “menaquinone” OR “menadione” OR “thiamine” OR “thiamin” OR “aneurin” OR “riboflavin” OR “niacinamide” OR “niacin” OR “nicotinic” OR “nicotinamide” OR “pantothenic” OR “pyridoxine” OR “pyridoxal” OR “pyridoxamine” OR “biotin” OR “folic” OR “folate” OR “folacin” OR “pteroylglutamic” OR “pteroyl-l-glutamate” OR “pteroyl-l-glutamic” OR “cobalamin” OR “cobalamins” OR “cobalamine” OR “cobalamines” OR “cyanocobalamin” OR “cyanocobalamine” OR “ascorbic” OR “ascorbate” OR “choline”)—(March 2024).

Web of Science: “phenylketonuria” OR “phenylalanine hydroxylase deficiency” OR “phenylalanine hydroxylase deficient” OR “PKU” OR “hyperphenylalaninemia” OR “BH4 deficiency” OR “BH4 deficient” OR “tetrahydrobiopterin deficiency” OR “tetrahydrobiopterin deficient” OR “PAH deficiency” OR “PAH deficient” OR “phenylketonuric” OR “hyperphenylalaninaemia” (Topic) AND “dietary” OR “supplement” OR “supplementations” OR “supplementation” OR “nutritional” OR “nutrition” OR “diet” OR “diets” OR “vitamin” OR “vitamins” OR “vitaminization” OR “vitaminisation” OR “nutrient” OR “nutrients” OR “micronutrient” OR “micronutrients” OR “fat-soluble” OR “fat soluble” OR “water soluble” OR “water-soluble” OR “calciferol” OR “cholecalciferol” OR “colecalciferol” OR “ergocalciferol” OR “dihydroxycholecalciferol” OR “1,25(OH)2D” OR “hydroxyvitamin” OR “25(OH)D” OR “hydroxyergocalciferol” OR “tocopherol” OR “tocopherols” OR “antioxidant” OR “antioxidants” OR “carotenoid” OR “carotenoids” OR “retinol” OR “retinal” OR “retinoic” OR “retinyl” OR “carotene” OR “provitamin” OR “provitamins” OR “phytomenadione” OR “phytonadione” OR “menaquinone” OR “menadione” OR “thiamine” OR “thiamin” OR “aneurin” OR “riboflavin” OR “niacinamide” OR “niacin” OR “nicotinic” OR “nicotinamide” OR “pantothenic” OR “pyridoxine” OR “pyridoxal” OR “pyridoxamine” OR “biotin” OR “folic” OR “folate” OR “folacin” OR “pteroylglutamic” OR “pteroyl-L-glutamate” OR “Pteroyl-L-glutamic” OR “cobalamin” OR “cobalamins” OR “cobalamine” OR “cobalamines” OR “cyanocobalamin” OR “cyanocobalamine” OR “ascorbic” OR “ascorbate” OR “choline” (Topic)—(March 2024).

2.6. Risk of Bias of Individual Studies

The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) [36], which is a tool for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies in meta-analyses, and the NOS adapted by Modesti et al. [37] was used for cross-sectional studies. The NOS assessment of case–control studies examined three key domains: the selection of study groups, the comparability of these groups, and the ascertainment of the exposure of interest. The modified NOS for cross-sectional studies included an assessment of the following three perspectives: potential bias on selection, comparability, and outcome. Each study underwent an independent assessment by two reviewers (K.B. & M.J.) to ensure consistency in the application of the tool. The reviewers evaluated the risk of bias for each study based on the predefined criteria within the NOS, and any discrepancies were addressed through discussion to reach a consensus. The NOS assigns scores to each study, indicating the overall methodological quality. For cross-sectional studies, the overall score ranged from 0 to 10, while for case–control studies, it ranged from 0 to 9. A study with a score of ≥7 was considered to possess a low risk of bias, scores ranging from 5 to 6 were considered a moderate risk of bias, and scores ≤ 4 were a high risk of bias.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

The meta-analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software, version 3.0 (Biostat, Inc., Englewood, CO, USA) to compare vitamin status in PKU patients vs. healthy control individuals if at least two identified studies per vitamin were available. If several studies incorporated data from the same population on the same outcome, only one paper was included in the meta-analysis. Vitamin plasma and serum levels, erythrocyte folate, and tocopherol levels were used for the effect size measure. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The metrics for effect size computation were the mean and standard deviations (SD), and for studies reporting the standard error of the mean (SEM), the SD was derived by multiplying the reported SEM by the square root of the corresponding sample size. When a 95% confidence interval (CI) was available, the SD for each group was calculated by dividing the CI by 3.92 and multiplying the result by the square root of the sample size for each group. If the data were available as a median and interquartile range, the approximate SD was calculated by dividing the width of the interquartile range by 1.35. When studies included multiple intervention groups, they were combined into one group following the Cochrane guidelines. If the data were presented as a median and range, and additional data were not obtained, the study was excluded from the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis was conducted using the original data presented in the included studies. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the Cochran Q statistic (p < 0.1 indicates significant heterogeneity) and the I2 test (<25%, 25–75%, and >75% denoted low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively). The data and calculated effect sizes were combined with 95% CI using fixed-effect models when no heterogeneity was observed. For outcomes with moderate to high heterogeneity, random-effects models were employed. The effect sizes were expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs) to facilitate comparisons across studies. SMDs were determined by dividing the difference between the mean outcome values of groups by the pooled SD of the outcome values. Forest plots were generated to visualise the study-specific effect sizes and 95% CI. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by systematically removing each study one at a time and recalculating the pooled estimates to assess the robustness of the findings. Additionally, studies with a high risk of bias were excluded from the analysis to check the effect of bias on the results and assess its potential influence on the overall findings. Funnel plots were generated, and Begg’s and Egger’s tests were employed to assess the presence of publication bias. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted along with subgroup analyses. Subgroups were defined based on the mean age (<18 years vs. ≥18 years), development status of countries (developed vs. developing), and study year (≤2000 vs. >2000). PKU individuals have specific dietary regimens and different growth rates and nutritional requirements during childhood compared to adulthood, which may affect their vitamin levels. The comparison of older and more recent data was applied to explore potential trends or shifts in vitamin levels among PKU patients over time. This aligns with the historical context of PKU management, considering that significant advancements in treatment and dietary guidelines have occurred over time. Subgroup analyses based on the development status of countries were performed to elucidate potential variations in the vitamin status of PKU patients across different healthcare settings and economic standards.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results

Out of the initially identified 11,086 articles, 4472 duplicates were excluded, and the screening of titles and abstracts identified 88 relevant articles of which 24 met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1).

3.2. Study Characteristics

The included studies were published from 1994 [38] to 2023 [39], and their characteristics are detailed in Table 1. Four studies were conducted in Greece [25,27,40,41], three in Turkey [31,42,43], three in Spain [32,44,45], two in Austria [26,46], two in Chile [39,47], two in Japan [29,30], two in the United Kingdom [48,49], two in the USA [38,50], and one each in Germany [51], France [52], Poland [28], and Switzerland [53]. All studies, except for one case–control study [26], were cross-sectional and compared individuals with PKU to healthy controls. The PKU groups varied from 10 [39,52] to 107 [28], while control groups ranged from 6 [38] to 1676 [49]. Five studies assessed children [25,27,28,31,40], one studied adolescents [43], children and adolescents were included in nine studies [26,32,38,41,42,45,46,50,51,53], six studies examined adults [29,30,39,48,49,52], and the remaining two studies had a mixed population [44,47]. Most studies included males and females [24,26,27,28,29,30,37,38,40,41,42,45,46,49,50,51,52], and while it was not explicitly stated in other studies [25,27,40,44,45,48,49], they likely involved both male and female participants. Table 2 presents the characteristics of the diet and metabolic status of the studied individuals.

3.3. Comparison of Folate Levels

Folate levels were evaluated in ten studies [26,27,39,42,43,44,46,48,49,51] (Table 3), nine of which [26,27,39,42,43,44,46,48,49] were incorporated into the meta-analysis and one study [51] was excluded because the data were presented as the median and range. The results showed significantly higher folate concentrations in PKU patients compared to healthy controls (random-effects model, SMD: 1.378, 95% CI: 0.436, 2.320, p = 0.004, Figure 2). The assessment of heterogeneity indicated a high risk (Q-value = 257.997, p < 0.001, I2 = 96.899%). Figure S1 displays a funnel plot of the standard error with standard differences in the means of folate levels. Figure S2 shows the outcomes of the sensitivity analysis, while Figure S3 illustrates the cumulative analysis results. After removing studies with a high risk of bias, the discrepancy in folate levels in PKU and the controls persisted, demonstrating a statistically significant difference (random-effects model, SMD: 1.423, 95% CI: 0.232, 2.614, p = 0.019, Figure S4).

3.4. Comparison of Vitamin B12 Levels

The comparison of vitamin B12 levels in PKU patients and healthy individuals in analysis did not incorporate data from one study [51] due to their presentation of median and range data, leaving seven studies [26,27,39,42,43,44,49] and revealing no significant difference between the PKU and control groups (random-effects model, SMD: 0.096, 95% CI: −0.365, 0.557, p = 0.684, Figure 3). The risk of heterogeneity among the studies was high (Q-value = 70.821, p < 0.001, I2 = 91.528%). A funnel plot of the standard error by standard differences in the mean vitamin B12 levels is shown in Figure S5. Figure S6 illustrates the findings from the sensitivity analysis, while Figure S7 displays the results of the cumulative analysis. The exclusion of studies with a high risk of bias did not change the results (random-effects model, SMD: 0.142, 95% CI: −0.439, 0.722, p = 0.632, Figure S8).

3.5. Comparison of Vitamin D Levels

The vitamin D levels among PKU patients and healthy controls were evaluated in seven articles [29,30,31,39,41,47,50] by pooling data from studies that provided information on 25-hydroxyvitamin D [30,39,41,47,50], 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [29], and cholecalciferol [31]. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences in vitamin D levels between the PKU and control groups (random-effects model, SMD: −0.872, 95% CI: −2.023, 0.278, p = 0.137, Figure 4). There was high heterogeneity between the studies (Q-value = 150.122, p < 0.001, I2 = 96.003%). A funnel plot of the standard errors by standard differences for the mean vitamin D levels is shown in Figure S9. The results of the sensitivity analysis are shown in Figure S10, and the results of cumulative analysis are presented in Figure S11. The exclusion of studies considered to have a high risk of bias did not alter the findings (random-effects model, SMD: −1.343, 95% CI: −3.073, 0.386, p = 0.128, Figure S12).

3.6. Comparison of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D Levels

The meta-analysis of the three studies [29,30,50], which evaluated 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D concentrations, revealed significantly higher levels in the PKU group compared to the controls (random-effects model, SMD: 2.059, 95% CI: 0.250, 3.868, p = 0.026, Figure 5). The risk of heterogeneity was assessed as high (Q-value = 37.916, p < 0.001, I2 = 94.725%). A funnel plot of the standard error by standard differences in mean 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D concentrations is shown in Figure S13. Figure S14 shows the outcomes of the sensitivity analysis, while Figure S15 presents the cumulative analysis results. Excluding the study with a high risk of bias revealed no significant differences between the groups (random-effects model, SMD: 2.768, 95% CI: −0.373, 5.909, p = 0.084, Figure S16).

3.7. Comparison of Vitamin A Levels

Vitamin A levels were assessed in four studies [28,31,32,52], but one study was excluded [52] because the data were presented as the median and range. There were no significant differences in vitamin A concentrations between the PKU and healthy individuals (random-effects model, SMD: 0.013, 95% CI: −0.359, 0.385, p = 0.944, Figure 6). The risk of heterogeneity was assessed as moderate (Q-value = 4.427, p = 0.109, I2 = 54.824%). A funnel plot of the standard error by standard differences for the means of vitamin A concentrations is shown in Figure S17. Figure S18 illustrates the findings from the sensitivity analysis, while Figure S19 displays the results of the cumulative analysis. After excluding studies with a high risk of bias, the results remained unchanged, with no significant differences between the groups (random-effects model, SMD: −0.198, 95% CI: −0.550, 0.155, p = 0.272, Figure S20).

3.8. Comparison of Vitamin E Levels

Seven studies [25,28,31,32,45,52,53] compared the vitamin E concentrations of PKU and healthy individuals, but one paper [52] was not analysed due to the data presented as the median and range. The meta-analysis did not find significant differences (random-effects model, SMD: −0.033, 95% CI: −0.697, 0.631, p = 0.922, Figure 7), and the risk of heterogeneity was high (Q-value = 69.032, p < 0.001, I2 = 92.757%). A funnel plot of the standard error by standard differences in the means of vitamin E levels is shown in Figure S21. The results of sensitivity analysis are shown in Figure S22, and the results of cumulative analysis are presented in Figure S23. After excluding studies with a high risk of bias, there were no significant differences between the groups (random-effects model, SMD: 0.176, 95% CI: −0.483, 0.834, p = 0.601, Figure S24).

3.9. Comparison of Vitamin B6 Levels

Only two studies compared vitamin B6 concentrations in PKU and healthy controls [27,38], and the meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the groups (random-effects model, SMD: −0.143, 95% CI: −2.209, 1.923, p = 0.892, Figure 8). The assessment of heterogeneity indicated a high risk (Q-value = 15.143, p < 0.001, I2 = 93.397%). Figure S25 presents the outcomes of the sensitivity analysis, while Figure S26 illustrates the cumulative analysis results.

3.10. Comparison of Other Vitamins

Other vitamin levels are presented in Table 3, but a meta-analysis was not feasible due to limited data availability as only one study measured beta-carotene levels [25], one study investigated vitamin K concentrations [31], and another assessed biotin [40]. In addition, one [52] of the two studies [25,52] that investigated vitamin C presented data as the median and range, precluding the possibility of conducting a meta-analysis. No studies assessing the blood levels of vitamin B1, vitamin B2, vitamin B3, vitamin B5, vitamin B7, and choline were identified.

3.11. Subgroup Analysis

The subgroup analysis results are presented in Figures S27–S40, showing a significant difference in folate levels between the PKU individuals and controls based on age (under the age of 18 vs. aged 18 years and above; random-effects model, SMD: 1.239, 95% CI: 0.063, 2.414, p = 0.039 vs. SMD: 1.666, 95% CI: 0.346, 2.986, p = 0.013, Figure S27). Upon stratifying the studies by developed and developing countries, it was revealed that folate levels were elevated in PKU patients compared to controls in both developing and developed countries (random-effects model, SMD: 1.270, 95% CI: 0.964, 1.576, p < 0.001 vs. SMD: 1.423, 95% CI: 0.004, 2.842, p = 0.049, Figure S28). The year of the study did not impact the folate levels as they were consistently higher in PKU patients regardless of whether the study was conducted in 2000 or before or after this date (random-effects model, SMD: 2.811, 95% CI: 2.447, 3.174, p < 0.001 vs. SMD: 1.192, 95% CI: 0.279, 2.106, p = 0.011, Figure S29). However, only one study was conducted before 2000 [49].

The age of participants did not appear to influence vitamin B12 levels, as there were no significant differences observed between older individuals with PKU and their healthy counterparts, nor between younger individuals with PKU and the controls (random-effects model, SMD: −0.016, 95% CI: −0.390, 0.357, p = 0.931 vs. SMD: 0.119, 95% CI: −0.557, 0.795, p = 0.730, Figure S30). Stratifying studies based on the development status of countries did not alter the findings, as no significant differences in vitamin B12 concentrations were observed in either developed or developing countries (random-effects model, SMD: 0.132, 95% CI: −0.657, 0.920, p = 0.744 vs. SMD: 0.013, 95% CI: −0.248, 0.275, p = 0.920, Figure S31). Stratifying the studies by year of publication did not reveal any significant differences in vitamin B12 levels between participants in earlier studies [49] (≤2000) and those in later studies (>2000) (random-effects model, SMD: −0.144, 95% CI: −0.420, 0.132, p = 0.305 vs. SMD: 0.142, 95% CI: −0.439, 0.722, p = 0.632, Figure S32).

The age subgroup analysis of 25-dihydroxyvitamin D concentrations yielded consistent results with no significant differences in either younger or older populations (random-effects model, SMD: 0.200, 95% CI: −0.626, 1.025, p = 0.636 vs. SMD: −1.827, 95% CI: −3.910, 0.255, p = 0.085, Figure S33). Studies conducted in developing and developed countries revealed no significant difference in 25-dihydroxyvitamin D concentrations in PKU patients compared to the controls (random-effects model, SMD: 0.231, 95% CI: −0.102, 0.564, p = 0.174 vs. SMD: −1.764, 95% CI: −3.880, 0.352, p = 0.102, Figure S34). The subgroup analysis of 25-dihydroxyvitamin D concentrations stratified by the year of the studies (≤2000 vs. >2000) revealed no differences in either subgroup (random-effects model, SMD: 0.199, 95% CI: −0.626, 1.025, p = 0.636 vs. SMD: −1.343, 95% CI: −3.073, 0.386, p = 0.128, Figure S35).

Stratifying studies based on age showed no significant differences in levels of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D in either younger or older populations (random-effects model, SMD: 0.716, 95% CI: −0.003, 1.436, p = 0.051 vs. SMD: 2.768, 95% CI: −0.373, 5.909, p = 0.084, Figure S36). Similarly, stratifying by the year of the study revealed no significant differences in subgroups (≤2000 vs. >2000) (random-effects model, SMD: 0.716, 95% CI: −0.003, 1.436, p = 0.051 vs. SMD: 2.768, 95% CI: −0.373, 5.909, p = 0.084, Figure S37). Subgroup analysis based on the development status of countries was not possible due to a lack of relevant studies.

Subgroup analysis based on the development status of countries revealed no significant differences in vitamin A levels between the PKU patients and controls both in developed and developing subgroups (random-effects model, SMD: 0.050, 95% CI: −0.507, 0.606, p = 0.862 vs. SMD: −0.123, 95% CI: 0.384, −0.475, p = 0.635, Figure S38). Subgroup analysis for vitamin A levels based on the age of participants and study year was not possible due to a lack of relevant studies. The development status of countries (developed vs. developing) did not affect vitamin E levels, as indicated by subgroup analysis (random-effects model, SMD: −0.012, 95% CI: −0.805, 0.780, p = 0.976 vs. SMD: −0.135, 95% CI: −0.642, 0.372, p = 0.601, Figure S39). The year of the study did not affect the findings, with no significant differences in vitamin E levels between the PKU patients and healthy individuals irrespective of whether the study was conducted before or after 2000 (random-effects model, SMD: 0.292, 95% CI: −0.318, 0.903, p = 0.348 vs. SMD: −0.193, 95% CI: −1.122, 0.737, p = 0.684, Figure S40). A subgroup analysis for vitamin A levels based on age was not possible due to a lack of relevant studies. The same limitation was encountered in subgroup analyses for vitamin B6 levels.

3.12. Relative Differences in Vitamin Levels across Studies

Table 4 displays the relative differences between the levels of each vitamin in PKU patients and healthy subjects for each study included. These relative values provide more clinical insight into the differences observed between the groups.

3.13. Risk of Bias

The risk of bias assessment is presented in Table 5, showing that the overall scores for cross-sectional studies ranged from high to moderate (0–6 points). The methodological and reported shortcomings observed in numerous studies are evident in the low scores, lowering the reliability of the studies reviewed. Regarding selection bias, most studies investigated selected population groups, with only 13% of studies considered as “somewhat representative of the average in the target population”. Most studies (87%) used validated measurement tools to assess vitamin levels, and three studies did not describe the chosen tools. Given that blood samples were obtained from all participants invited to take part in this study, indicating a complete response rate for blood sample collection, it can be inferred that there was no non-response among the participants approached for blood sample collection. Consequently, 82.6% of the studies received a score in this category. However, four studies either did not provide data or did not conduct tests for all patients. Regarding comparability, 70.8% of studies controlled at least one main confounding factor (age) and 62.5% applied additional factors, such as sex, BMI, nutritional status, weight, height, weight for height, relative weight, liver function test, Tanner stages, sex hormone, and the same geographical area. No studies provided data about whether the assessment of outcome was blinded, and only two studies (8.7%) included complete statistical tests, while the remaining studies (91.3%) did not present the CIs, resulting in a deduction in points in this category. The risk of bias for the case–control study [26] was assigned six points.

4. Discussion

Our meta-analysis indicates that individuals with PKU have significantly higher folate and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D concentrations compared to healthy controls, but there were no significant differences in 25-hydroxyvitamin D, vitamin A, E, B6, or B12 levels. These findings provide valuable insights into the overall vitamin status of PKU populations, suggesting that these vitamins may not be substantially affected by the treated PKU condition.

Previously, only one meta-analysis examined the status of nutrients crucial for brain development and functioning in individuals with PKU compared to the controls [54] using similar inclusion and exclusion criteria, but we searched only for PKU patients diagnosed at neonatal screening. They also reported no significant differences between groups in vitamin B12, E, and D levels. They presented forest plots on folate levels without the overall effect size due to excessively high heterogeneity within the data. They did not perform meta-analyses for vitamins A, C, and B6, as well as choline levels, due to their decision to perform them only if at least four studies were available for a specific nutrient, though they provided forest plots without the overall pooled effect. There are notable differences between our studies. Firstly, Montoya Parra et al. [54] published the results in 2018, and our meta-analysis included studies conducted later [31,39,42,47]. Secondly, we excluded some of their included studies because there was no information on neonatal diagnosis [55,56], and patients were diagnosed outside the neonatal programme in one study [57]. One paper [58] included by Montoya Parra et al. [54] was in Chinese, but we could not contact the authors. For choline analysis, Montoya Parra et al. [54] utilised studies [59,60] that reported brain choline concentrations, but one paper [60] presented data for the control group in the form of ranges; thus, a meta-analysis was not possible. Finally, Montoya Parra et al. [54] provided only forest plots and assessed heterogeneity, while our study also included sensitivity analyses, funnel plots, a publication bias and risk of bias assessment, cumulative meta-analyses, and subgroup analyses.

One of the main findings of our meta-analysis was the significantly higher folate concentrations observed in PKU patients, which may result from dietary education/practices among individuals with PKU. Despite the high heterogeneity among the studies, the difference in folate levels persisted even after sensitivity analysis, indicating the robustness of this finding. Subgroup analysis revealed insights into the folate status among PKU patients. Notably, regardless of age, individuals with PKU consistently exhibited higher folate levels compared to healthy controls. Our analysis also highlighted no geographic disparities, with significantly higher folate levels observed in PKU patients from both developing and developed countries compared to the controls. However, the p-value for the subgroup analysis conducted on developed countries was 0.049, suggesting that the geographical location may influence the magnitude of the difference in folate levels between PKU patients and healthy individuals, with the potential of slight variations between developed and developing regions. Rojas-Agurto et al. [39] compared adult PKU patients receiving continuous nutritional treatment with strict follow-up to those who discontinued their protein substitute intake at 18 years of age, reporting higher serum folic acid levels in both groups of PKU patients compared with controls. Similarly, Akis et al. [42] found higher folic acid levels in both the high-adherence and low-adherence groups compared to the control group (p < 0.001). Gündüz et al. [43] reported significantly higher folic acid concentrations in both well-controlled and poorly controlled PKU patients compared to the controls (p < 0.001) with no difference between PKU groups (p = 0.830). In the investigation of Huemer et al. [26], folate concentrations in PKU patients correlated significantly with their intake of amino acids, natural protein, total protein, and folic acid and were negatively correlated with Phe levels. PKU individuals were reported to have higher intakes of folic acid than the controls (p < 0.01) and were four times the upper reference and control group levels [39]. The high folate levels in PKU were associated with the substantial incorporation of vegetables in the Phe-restricted diet [20,26,49]. Vegetables, particularly dark green leafy varieties, along with fruits and fruit juices, are rich sources of folate [61]. The PKU diet primarily consists of vegetables and fruits, supplemented with low-protein dietetic products [62], often fortified with folic acid. Therefore, this outcome seems to align naturally.

Contrary to folate, there were no significant differences in vitamin B12 levels between PKU patients and healthy individuals. A comparison between continuously treated PKU patients and those who discontinued their protein substitute intake upon reaching the age of 18 years revealed significantly lower vitamin B12 levels in the latter group [39]. The second group of PKU patients maintained a predominantly vegan diet, which provided a limited amount of essential amino acids. Consequently, these PKU patients exhibited low blood vitamin B12 levels after discontinuing treatment, which could suggest that a formula-based diet is important for maintaining adequate levels of vitamin B12 [39]. Interestingly, Colomé et al. [44], when evaluating patients on amino acid mixtures, documented that those with poor dietary compliance had significantly lower vitamin B12 concentrations compared to those with good metabolic control. Robinson et al. [49] compared different PKU participants, revealing sufficient vitamin B12 levels in patients on a strict diet and significantly lower levels in participants on an unrestricted and relaxed diet compared to healthy individuals. These observations suggest that consuming supplemented PKU products results in better vitamin B12 status among PKU patients.

There were no significant differences in 25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels between the PKU patients and controls, and this was consistent across the subgroup analyses for age, the country’s development statuses, and study years. The concentrations of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D in PKU patients were initially observed to be significantly higher than in the controls, but no significant differences were found on the exclusion of a high risk of bias study. Therefore, vitamin D status may remain stable in PKU populations compared to healthy individuals despite demographic, age, or temporal variations. When comparing PKU patients taking a continuous nutritional treatment and strict follow-up to those who discontinued their protein substitute intake at 18 years of age, Rojas-Agurto et al. [39] found that serum vitamin D3 levels were significantly lower in the latter group compared to the former, implying that ongoing nutritional management and adherence to treatment protocols are sufficient to maintain adequate vitamin D levels in individuals with PKU. Interestingly, Nagasaka et al. [30] found 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels to be significantly higher in adults diagnosed with PKU compared to the controls, while levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D were significantly lower than the controls. According to the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on vitamin D deficiency [63], serum levels of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D do not accurately reflect vitamin D reserves and are not considered useful for defining vitamin D status. Even in cases of vitamin D deficiency, serum 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels may appear normal or elevated due to secondary hyperparathyroidism. Therefore, while its measurement is valuable in assessing acquired and inherited disorders related to the metabolism of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and phosphate, it does not provide a reliable indicator of overall vitamin D status; 25-hydroxyvitamin D should be measured instead. However, keeping in mind recent advances, vitamin D metabolism may be more complex [64]. Potential high levels of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D in PKU patients are very interesting and may form the basis for future investigations.

Our analysis also explored the status of other vitamins, including vitamins A, E, and B6, but observed no significant differences between PKU patients and controls. Subgroup analyses based on various factors did not alter the overall non-significant findings, suggesting that these nutrients may not be affected by the PKU condition or its treatment regimen.

This meta-analysis is one of the first to investigate the vitamin status of PKU patients compared to healthy individuals. Through the use of strict criteria and including only individuals diagnosed during the neonatal period, this present study ensures a more homogeneous and well-defined study population. This consistency in the timing of diagnosis and initiation of treatment helps to reduce variability among participants and ensures that they receive similar management strategies from infancy. Furthermore, this restriction helps to minimise confounding factors and ensures that the observed differences in outcomes between individuals with PKU and healthy controls are more likely attributable to the condition rather than variations in diagnostic timing. By stratifying the data based on age, the development status of countries, and study years, we aimed to uncover potential nuances that could impact the interpretation of our meta-analysis findings.

It is essential to address the concerns regarding the risk of bias identified during our assessments, particularly in domains such as selection bias and outcome ascertainment. Selection bias was primarily associated with the representativeness of the sample and its size. The evaluation of outcomes, as per NOS criteria, hinged on the assessment of the outcome and the statistical tests employed. Points in the first category were granted only if “independent blind assessment”, “record linkage”, or “self-report” methods were implemented in the study. Since the measurement of vitamin levels was objective, it should not impact the results; however, we were unable to grant any points in this category, resulting in lower overall scores for all studies. In the statistical category, the absence of points was primarily due to the lack of CIs. However, it is important to note that in other aspects, statistical analysis was fully described and adequate. Some limitations are associated with the assessment tool itself. The NOS relies on subjective judgment in assigning scores for each domain, potentially introducing variability in assessments between reviewers. Moreover, the original NOS primarily focuses on study design features and overlooks other potential sources of bias, such as selective outcome reporting or conflicts of interest, which could affect the validity of the study findings. While the NOS allows for the assessment of study quality, it lacks a quantitative measure of bias magnitude, making it difficult to determine the extent to which bias may have influenced the study outcomes. Finally, we conducted a publication bias assessment despite the limited number of studies included in the review. However, when the number of studies was smaller than 10, publication bias could not be reliably assessed. These limitations underscore the need for the cautious interpretation of our findings.

Various factors may influence our findings. Research in the PKU field, as well as in any rare disease, is particularly challenging, primarily due to the small patient population. The small number of individuals affected by PKU restricts the available pool of research participants. Only Leiva et al. [47] justified and calculated the required sample size. Differentiated compliance among PKU patients, as well as the severity of PKU, could impact study outcomes. Environmental factors, such as sunlight exposure and regional dietary patterns, may contribute to variations in vitamin status among the study participants. Furthermore, changes in treatment strategies or the composition of formulas could also influence the observed outcomes. Patient demographics, including age, sex, and ethnicity, varied across the included studies, potentially introducing heterogeneity in outcomes.

Meta-regression and network meta-analysis, as well as subgroup analysis regarding the sex, type of protein substitute, adherence to treatment, and metabolic control of participants, were not performed. Some subgroups contained only a small number of included studies, which could have influenced the results. Further larger studies are needed to validate our findings.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the present meta-analysis revealed that PKU patients have higher folate and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels compared to the controls. No differences in vitamin A, E, B6, B12, and 25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels between PKU patients and healthy subjects were documented. This suggests that individuals with PKU can attain adequate vitamin status similar to that of their healthy counterparts. Comparable or even higher levels of vitamins underscore the significance of a cautious approach in addressing nutritional requirements, including Phe-free products, low-protein foods, and vitamin supplements, as well as considering not only deficiencies but also excesses of vitamins. Future research should explore the impact of specific treatment regimens and compliance in PKU patients on vitamin status.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, K.B., M.J., D.W. and J.W.; methodology, K.B., M.J. and J.W.; software, M.J.; validation, D.W. and J.W., formal analysis, M.J.; investigation, K.B., M.J. and M.D.-Ż.; resources, J.W.; data curation, K.B. and M.J.; writing—original draft preparation, K.B., M.J. and J.W.; writing—review and editing, D.W., M.D.-Ż. and K.-H.H.; supervision, J.W.; project administration, J.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

 Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

 Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

 Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

 Acknowledgments

Kamila Bokayeva is a participant in the STER Internationalization of Doctoral Schools Program from the NAWA Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange No. PPI/STE/2020/1/00014/DEC/02.

 Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

 Abbreviations

BMI—body mass index; CI—confidence interval; NA—not analysed; NI—no information; NOS—Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; PAH—phenylalanine hydroxylase gene; Phe—phenylalanine; PKU—phenylketonuria; SD—standard deviation; SMD—standardised mean difference; Tyr—tyrosine.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables
View Image - Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.Enlarge this image.

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.

View Image - Figure 2. Forest plot of the folate levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [26,27,39,42,43,44,46,48,49]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.Enlarge this image.

Figure 2. Forest plot of the folate levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [26,27,39,42,43,44,46,48,49]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.

View Image - Figure 3. Forest plot of vitamin B12 levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [26,27,39,42,43,44,49]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.Enlarge this image.

Figure 3. Forest plot of vitamin B12 levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [26,27,39,42,43,44,49]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.

View Image - Figure 4. Forest plot of vitamin D levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [29,30,31,39,41,47,50]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.Enlarge this image.

Figure 4. Forest plot of vitamin D levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [29,30,31,39,41,47,50]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.

View Image - Figure 5. Forest plot of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [29,30,50]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.Enlarge this image.

Figure 5. Forest plot of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [29,30,50]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.

View Image - Figure 6. Forest plot of vitamin A levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [28,31,32]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.Enlarge this image.

Figure 6. Forest plot of vitamin A levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [28,31,32]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.

View Image - Figure 7. Forest plot of the vitamin E levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [25,28,31,32,45,53]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.Enlarge this image.

Figure 7. Forest plot of the vitamin E levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [25,28,31,32,45,53]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.

View Image - Figure 8. Forest plot of vitamin B6 levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [27,38]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.Enlarge this image.

Figure 8. Forest plot of vitamin B6 levels in PKU patients (favours A) vs. controls (favours B) (random model) [27,38]. CI—confidence interval; Std—standard; Std diff—standard differences.

Characteristics of included studies and studied participants.

Author Year Country (Region) Study Design Groups n Included n Completed Age [Years] 1 BMI [kg/m2] 1 Sex [% of Women]
Rojas-Agurto et al. [39] 2023 Chile Cross-sectional PKU 2 10 10 23.5 (19–26) 4 24.3 (22.4–28.5) 4 50
Control 10 10 21.5 (20–27) 4 24.3 (24.1–27.9) 4 50
PKU 3 14 14 22.5 (18.5–25.5) 4 26.7 (24–29.9) 4 36
Control 14 14 23 (19–25) 4 27.6 (23.3–30.6) 4 36
Leiva et al. [47] 2021 Chile Cross-sectional PKU 2 16 16 6–23 5 NI 44
Control 16 16 NI NI 44
Akış et al. [42] 2020 Turkey Cross-sectional PKU 6 31 31 9.50 (5.00–18.00) 8 NI 38
PKU 7 22 22
Control 30 30 8.59 (5.00–17.50) 8 NI 53
Ekin et al. [31] 2018 Turkey Cross-sectional PKU 2 30 30 7.54 ± 0.58 9 16.16 ± 0.54 9 60
Control 30 30 7.89 ± 0.74 9 17.64 ± 0.53 9 56.6
Veyrat-Durebex et al. [52] 2017 France Cross-sectional PKU 10 10 9 31 ± 6 26 ± 4 60
Control 10 9 NI 22 ± 4 NI
Gündüz et al. [43] 2016 Turkey Cross-sectional PKU 11 24 24 13.1 ± 2.4 19.1 ± 2.1 33
PKU 12 35 35 14.1± 2.9 18.9± 1.9 54
Control 44 44 13.0 ± 2.0 19.7± 2.0 57
Nagasaka et al. [29] 2013 Japan Cross-sectional PKU 13 33 33 28.1 ± 5.1 23.7 ± 2.2 54.5
Control 20 20 28.9 ± 4.5 23.1 ± 1.9 50
Mikoluc et al. [28] 2012 Poland Cross-sectional PKU 14 107 107 15 8.8 ± 2.06 NI 43
Control 62 62 8.6 ± 1.1 NI 50
Mütze et al. [51] 2012 Germany Cross-sectional PKU 11 12 12 7.88 (5–14) 8 16.68/0.6 (14.51/−1.24–23.21/1.51) 8,16 50
Control 8 8 9.75 (5–17) 8 16.22/−0.1 (13.15/−1.71–22.41/1.18) 8,16 62.5
Huemer et al. [46] 2012 Austria Cross-sectional PKU 2 16 16 10.1 ± 5.2 19.5 ± 4.5 43.75
Control 91 91 11.6 ± 3.7 19.2 ± 4.3 35
Nagasaka et al. [30] 2011 Japan Cross-sectional PKU 17,18 21 21 27.1 ± 3.2 9 22.5 ± 1.5 9 100
PKU 17,19 13 13 26.9 ± 3.3 9 24.7 ± 2.4 9 0
Control 18 22 22 27.9 ± 5.1 9 23.7 ± 2.2 9 100
Control 19 14 14 30.3 ± 4.5 9 23.5 ± 2.3 9 0
Huemer et al. [26] 2008 Austria Case-control PKU 2 37 37 12.3 ± 4.5 19.1 ± 3.3 35.1
Control 63 63 11.5 ± 4.1 NI 41.3
Gassió et al. [32] 2008 Spain Cross-sectional PKU 2 36 36 9.7 (2.7–19.4) 20 NI 47.2
Control 29 29 9.6 (2.5–18.8) 20 NI 48.3
Colomé et al. [44] 2003 Spain Cross-sectional PKU 2,21 42 42 15.3 ± 9.5 NI NI
Control 42 42 15.7 ± 9.7 NI NI
Schulpis et al. [25] 2003 Greece Cross-sectional PKU 11 22 22 7.7 ± 3.2 NI NI
PKU 12 24 24 8.0 ± 3.6 NI NI
Control 40 40 7.68 ± 2.6 NI NI
Schulpis et al. [27] 2002 Greece Cross-sectional PKU 11 34 34 6.78 ± 1.5 NI NI
PKU 12 40 40 8.0 ± 3.2 NI NI
Control 50 50 7.68 ± 2.3 NI NI
Lucock et al. [48] 2002 The United Kingdom Cross-sectional PKU 16 16 26.5 (17–37) 8 NI NI
Control 25 25 33 (25–53) 8 NI NI
van Bakel et al. [53] 2000 Switzerland Cross-sectional PKU 22 24 24 9.65 ± 4.06 NI 41.7
PKU 23 10 10 9.08 ± 5.17 NI 50
Control 42 42 11.18 ± 4.84 NI 28.6
Robinson et al. [49] 2000 The United Kingdom Cross-sectional PKU 24 22 22 26 24 29 NI NI
PKU 25 30 30 27 21 29 NI NI
Control 1676 1676 28 NI NI NI
Al-Qadreh et al. [41] 1998 Greece Cross-sectional PKU 48 48 8.86 ± 3.7 NI 58.3
Control 50 50 9.06 ± 3.5 NI 58.3
Schulpis et al. [40] 1998 Greece Cross-sectional PKU 11 21 21 4.78 ± 3.51 NI NI
PKU 12 26 26 7.87 ± 3.68 NI NI
Control 79 79 6.68 ± 2.3 NI NI
Sierra et al. [45] 1998 Spain Cross-sectional PKU 11 42 42 7.12 (1 month–17 years) 20 NI NI
Control 45 45 6.5 (1 month–17 years) 20 NI NI
Hillman et al. [50] 1996 The USA Cross-sectional PKU 11 11 10.9 ± 4.2 NI 54.5
Control 64 64 30,31 11.4 ± 4.2 NI 50
Prince et al. [38] 1994 The USA Cross-sectional PKU 2 16 15 10.5 ± 2.9 NI 40
Control 6 6 9.4 ± 3.3 NI 33.3

1—mean ± standard deviation; 2—patients under diet treatment; 3—patients who discontinued the protein substitution at 18 years of age; 4—median (25th–75th centile); 5—range; 6—patients with high adherence; 7—patients with low adherence; 8—median (min–max); 9—mean ± standard error of the mean; 10—patients followed a Phe-restrictive diet in childhood and stopped it at the average age of 6 years; 11—well-controlled; 12—poorly controlled; 13—patients exclusively received phenylalanine-restricted diets; after the age of 20 years, restrictions of phenylalanine differed greatly among patients; 14—patients keeping phenylalanine levels in the blood within the recommended values; 15—vitamin analyses were performed in 99 participants; 16—BMI/SDS (standard deviation score); 17—until the age of 15 years, patients received phenylalanine-restricted diets with phenylalanine-free milk; thereafter, the restrictions of phenylalanine varied among the patients; 18—female participants; 19—male participants; 20—mean (range); 21—27 had acceptable dietary control and 15 had poor dietary compliance; 22—phenylalanine tolerance < 12 mg phenylalanine·kg−1·d−1; 23—phenylalanine tolerance > 12 mg phenylalanine·kg−1·d−1); 24—strict diet; 25—relaxed diet; 26—folate concentration analysis was performed in 11 participants; 27—folate concentration analysis was performed in 21 participants; 28—folate concentration data were obtained from 1502 individuals; 29—median; 30—25(OH)D vitamin concentration analysis was performed in 29 participants; and 31—1,25(OH)2D vitamin concentration analysis was performed in 27 participants. BMI—body mass index; PKU—phenylketonuria; NI—no information.

Characteristics of diet and metabolic status of studied individuals.

Author Year Groups Natural Protein/Protein Substitute/Total Protein Intake [g/day] 1 Phe Intake [mg/d] Mean/Median Phe Levels [μmol/L] 1 Medical Control Adherence to Treatment Phe [μmol/L] 1 Tyr [μmol/L] 1 Total Protein Level [g/dL]
Rojas-Agurto et al. [39] 2023 PKU 2 75.1 (57.3–78.2) 4 600 (400–800) 4 NI Yes Yes 260.3 (170–642) 4 46.6 (33.1–49.7) 4 NI
Control 84.4 (57.9–101) 4 3900 (2600–4900) 4 /// /// 39.3 (36.3–42.4) 4 49.7 (44.2–60.7) 4
PKU 3 46.6 (28.9–68.7) 4 1200 (500–1700) 4 No No 781 (636–1035.1) 4 35.9 (33.1–55.2) 4
Control 89.6 (66.6–101.1) 4 4000 (3100–4500) 4 /// /// 47.8 (40.6–48.4) 4 53 (44.2–60.7) 4
Leiva et al. [47] 2021 PKU 2 NI NI NI Yes Yes 310 (262; 481) 5 NI NI
Control /// /// NI
Akış et al. [42] 2020 PKU 6 NI NI NI Yes High 357.19 (121.10–514.60) 8 NI NI
PKU 7 Yes Low 696.21 (441.90–1035.20) 8 NI NI
Control /// /// NI NI NI
Ekin et al. [31] 2018 PKU 2 NI NI NI NI NI 269.50 ± 49.75 9 59.62 ± 10.58 9 NI
Control /// /// 51.07 ± 3.52 9 57.58 ± 4.45 9
Veyrat-Durebex et al. [52] 2017 PKU 10 NI NI NI NI No 1449 (363;1854) 8 51 (30;56) 8 NI
Control /// /// 60 (50;95) 8 69 (45;77) 8
Gündüz et al. [43] 2016 PKU 11 0.20–0.40/0.6–0.8/0.8–1.2 13 300–900 NI NINI Yes 306.1± 78.0 NI NI
PKU 12 No 720.8± 196.7
Control NI NI /// /// 48.8± 12.2
Nagasaka et al. [29] 2013 PKU 14 50 ± 13/ /71 ± 17 NI NI NI NI 1019 ± 380 NI NI
Control 66 ± 14/-/80 ± 15 /// /// 30 ± 15
Mikoluc et al. [28] 2012 PKU 15 NI NI NI Yes Yes NI NI NI
Control /// ///
Mütze et al. [51] 2012 PKU 11 -/-/41.1 (22.5–78.3) 8 338 (254–690) 8 NI NI Yes 302 (72–930) 8 NI 7.05 (6.37–7.3) 8
Control NI NI NI /// /// 53 (48–75) 8 NI NI
Huemer et al. [46] 2012 PKU 2 0.23 ± 0.11/-/1.3 ± 0.4 NI NI NI NI 809 (400–919) 4 NI NI
Control NI /// /// 6250 ± 80 4 NI NI
Nagasaka et al. [30] 2011 PKU 16, 17 40 ± 11/-/66 ± 15 NI NI NI NI 22.3 ± 4.5 NI 7.2 ± 0.3 9
PKU 16, 18 47 ± 10/-/72 ± 17 NI 7.3 ± 0.3 9
Control 17 79 ± 10/-/79 ± 10 /// /// NI 7.5 ± 0.3 9
Control 18 88 ± 11/-/88 ± 11 /// /// NI 7.6 ± 0.3 9
Huemer et al. [26] 2008 PKU 2 0.3 ± 0.2//1.8 ± 0.3 NI NI NI NI 620 ± 425 NI NI
Control NI /// /// ///
Gassió et al. [32] 2008 PKU 2 NI NI NI NI Yes NI 57.41 ± 24.84 NI
Control /// /// 72 (53–87) 19
Colomé et al. [44] 2003 PKU 2, 20 NI NI NI NI Mixed group NI NI NI
Control ///
Schulpis et al. [25] 2003 PKU 11 -/-/70 ± 18 21 NI 292 ± 60 22 Yes NI 115.3 ± 26.5 NI
PKU 12 -/-/72.0 ± 20 21 895 ± 54 22 No 45.8 ± 27.5
Control -/-/73.0 ± 17 21 NI /// /// 139.6 ± 32.1
Schulpis et al. [27] 2002 PKU 11 6 ± 1.2/-/70 ± 13 NI NI Yes 192 ± 115 NI NI
PKU 12 30 ± 1.6/-/72 ± 14 No 599 ± 16
Control 74 ± 15/-/74 ± 15 /// /// 70.1 ± 100
Lucock et al. [48] 2002 PKU NI NI NI No 1037 (560–1760) 8 NI NI
Control /// /// NI
van Bakel et al. [53] 2000 PKU 23 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
PKU 24
Control /// ///
Robinson et al. [49] 2000 PKU 25 NI NI NI Yes Yes NI NI NI
PKU 26 Yes No
Control /// ///
Al-Qadreh et al. [41] 1998 PKU NI NI NI Yes NI 111.3 ± 66.20 NI NI
Control /// /// ///
Schulpis et al. [40] 1998 PKU 11 26.0 ± 7.2/42.0 ± 5.0/68.1 ± 12.9 NI 20 ± 9 22 Yes 31.0 ± 9.0 NI NI
PKU 12 35.0 ± 8.2/35.0 ± 11.5/70.9 ± 19.7 15.87 ± 5.09 22 No 18.87 ± 3.09
Control -/-/72.3 ± 16.9 NI /// /// 1.2 ± 0.5
Sierra et al. [45] 1998 PKU 11 NI NI NI Yes NI NI NI
Control /// ///
Hillman et al. [50] 1996 PKU -/-/46.1 ± 12.1 NI 99.8 ± 95.4 27 NI NI NI NI NI
Control NI NI /// ///
Prince et al. [38] 1994 PKU 2 -/-/44.2 ± 10 NI NI Yes No 28 882 ± 284 NI NI
Control -/-/69.2 ± 17 /// /// 70 ± 13

1—mean ± standard deviation; 2—patients under diet treatment; 3—patients who discontinued the protein substitution at 18 years of age; 4—median (25th–75th centile); 5—median and 95% CI; 6—patients with high adherence; 7—patients with low adherence; 8—median (min–max); 9—mean ± standard error of the mean; 10—patients followed a Phe-restrictive diet in childhood and stopped it at the average age of 6 years; 11—well-controlled; 12—poorly controlled; 13—g/kg/day; 14—patients exclusively received phenylalanine-restricted diets; after the age of 20 years, restrictions of phenylalanine differed greatly among patients; 15—patients with phenylalanine levels in the blood kept within the recommended values; 16—until the age of 15 years, patients received phenylalanine-restricted diets with phenylalanine-free milk; thereafter, the restrictions of phenylalanine varied among the patients; 17—female participants; 18—male participants; 19—mean (range); 20—27 had acceptable dietary control and 15 had poor dietary compliance; 21—per 100 g; 22—mean annual Phe levels; 23—phenylalanine tolerance < 12 mg phenylalanine·kg−1·d−1; 24—phenylalanine tolerance > 12 mg phenylalanine·kg−1·d−1); 25—strict diet; 26—relaxed diet; 27—mean average of three serum Phe values prior to study; and 28—nearly all patients had plasma phenylalanine concentrations above the recommended upper safe limit and about one-third of these patients were no longer consuming medical foods regularly. Phe—phenylalanine; Tyr—tyrosine; PKU—phenylketonuria; NI—no information.

Comparison of vitamin status between PKU individuals and healthy controls.

Author Year Groups Folate 1 Vitamin B12 1 Vitamin D 1 1,25(OH)2D Vitamin 1 Vitamin A 1 Beta-Carotene 1 Vitamin E 1 Vitamin B6 1 Vitamin K 1 Vitamin C 1 Biotin 1
Rojas-Agurto et al. [39] 2023 PKU 2 25.69 ± 7.58 4,5,6,7 669.2 ± 330.4 4,6,7 36.97 ± 9.33 4,7,8,9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Control 15.72 ± 5.39 4,5,6,7 454 ± 216.6 4,6,7 29.26 ± 8.98 4,7,8,9
PKU 3 23.68 ± 7.19 4,5,6,7 383.4 ± 253.2 4,6,7 24.3 ± 10.62 4,7,8,9
Control 16.63 ± 4.57 4,5,6,7 444.9 ± 134.8 4,6,7 30.45 ± 10.29 4,7,8,9
Leiva et al. [47] 2021 PKU 2 NA NA 38.61 ± 8.67 4,6,7,8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Control 33.84 ± 7.93 4,6,7,8
Akış et al. [42] 2020 PKU 10 36.39 ± 9.85 4,7,13 297.4 ± 126.5 4,7,15 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
PKU 11 37.05 (15.5–54.6) 4,13,14 281.2 (100–607) 4,14,15
PKU 12 36.36 (12.3–54.6) 4,13,14 266.8 (117–568) 4,14,15
Control 22.61 ± 7.38 4,7,13,14 291.4 ± 81.6 4,7,14,15
Ekin et al. [31] 2018 PKU 2 NA NA 0.43 ± 0.035 4,16,17,18 NA 2.91 ± 0.21 4,16,18 NA 2.26 ± 0.19 4,16,18 NA 0.73 ± 0.078 4,16,18 NA NA
Control 0.38 ± 0.033 4,16,17,18 3.03 ± 0.14 4,16,18 2.39 ± 0.16 4,16,18 1.01 ± 0.056 4,16,18
Veyrat-Durebex et al. [52] 2017 PKU 19 NA NA NA NA 1.8 (1.3;3.28) 14,18,20 NA 22.4 (18;36) 14,18,20 NA NA 58 (20;90) 14,18,20 NA
Control 1.67 (1;2.03) 14,18,20 24.2 (19;32) 14,18,20 75 (17;102) 14,18,20
Gündüz et al. [43] 2016 PKU 21 32.4± 9.7 4,5,13 256.5± 139.3 4,15 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
PKU 22 32.8 ± 9.0 4,5,13 308.8± 119.1 4,15
Control 22.5± 7.2 4,5,13 303.0± 85.8 4,15
Nagasaka et al. [29] 2013 PKU 23 NA NA 19.9 ± 2.1 4,6,24 55.5 ± 3.7 4,9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Control 28.9 ± 2.3 4,6,24 40.7 ± 2.7 4,9
Mikoluc et al. [28] 2012 PKU 25 NA NA NA NA 3.36 ± 2.11 18,20 NA 9.89 ± 7.75 18,20 NA NA NA NA
Control 2.74 ± 1.93 18,20 25.40 ± 17.52 18,20
Mütze et al. [51] 2012 PKU 21 45.4 (30.3 -> 45.4) 4,13,14 774.8 (289.9–1229) 4,14,15 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Control 28.1 (15.4–45.2) 4,13,14 352.6 (238.6–500) 4,14,15
Huemer et al. [46] 2012 PKU 2 7.2 ± 3.2 7,13,20 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Control 6.5 ± 2.9 7,13,20
Nagasaka et al. [30] 2011 PKU 26,27 NA NA 18.7 ± 1.3 4,6,8,16 58.4 ± 2.7 4,9,16 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
PKU 26,28 22.2 ± 1.7 4,6,8,16 50.6 ± 2.0 4,9,16
Control 27 27.6 ± 2.1 4,6,8,16 41.6 ± 3.1 4,9,16
Control 28 30.0 ± 2.6 4,6,8,16 39.9 ± 2.7 4,9,16
Huemer et al. [26] 2008 PKU 2 15.1 ± 5.1 4,6 783 ± 528 4,9 NA NA NA NA NA 146 ± 72 4,13 NA NA NA
Control 7.6 ± 3.3 4,6 478 ± 180 4,9 NI
Gassió et al. [32] 2008 PKU 2 NA NA NA NA 1.36 ± 0.38 20,29 NA 20 ± 4.57 20,29 NA NA NA NA
Control 2.10 ± 4.12 20,29 21 ± 6.74 20,29
Colomé et al. [44] 2003 PKU 2,30 49.1 ± 8.6 4,13 622 ± 253 4,15 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Control 19.1 ± 7.5 4,13 455 ± 161 4,15
Schulpis et al. [25] 2003 PKU 21 NA NA NA NA NA 0.7 ± 0.09 18,20 34 ± 0.9 18,20 NA NA 36.3 ± 1.1 18,20 NA
PKU 22 0.49 ± 0.08 18,20 22.0 ± 0.6 18,20 34.5 ± 1.1 18,20
Control 0.40 ± 0.09 18,20 24.0 ± 1.6 18,20 38.2 ± 2.01 18,20
Schulpis et al. [27] 2002 PKU 21 2.35 ± 1.3 4,13 98.5 ± 22.3 4,15 NA NA NA NA NA 10.7 ± 0.9 4,13 NA NA NA
PKU 22,31 5.8 ± 2.1 4,13 240.8 ± 62 4,15 58.8 ± 9.8 4,13
Control 6.1 ± 2.0 4,13 251 ± 68 4,15 60.2 ± 10 4,13
Lucock et al. [48] 2002 PKU 469.1 (397.7–637.1) 4,6,32,33 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Control 363.9 (325.3–457.9) 4,6,32,33 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
van Bakel et al. [53] 2000 PKU 34 NA NA NA NA NA NA 21.46 ± 4.06 18,20 NA NA NA NA
PKU 35 19.25 ± 2.11 18,20
Control 20.93 ± 6.15 18,20
Robinson et al. [49] 2000 PKU 36 476 ± 258 32,38 468.7 ± 199.7 39,40 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
PKU 37 471 ± 190.5 32,38 332.8 ± 128 39,40
Control 201 ± 92.8 32,38 411.9 ± 148.75 39,40
Al-Qadreh et al. [41] 1998 PKU NA NA 45.3 ±3.8 4,8,13,16 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Control 49.16 ±2.54 4,8,13,16
Schulpis et al. [40] 1998 PKU 21 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 636 ± 118 4,40
PKU 22 411.9 ± 184.9 4,40
Control 336.6 ± 290.6 4,40
Sierra et al. [45] 1998 PKU 21 NA NA NA NA NA NA 30.6 ± 9.31 29,41 NA NA NA NA
Control 26.07 ± 5.43 29,41
Hillman et al. [50] 1996 PKU NA NA 28.3 ± 9.8 4,8,42 36.6 ± 6.7 4,42 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Control 22.3 ± 8.5 4,8,42 30.4 ± 9.3 4,42
Prince et al. [38] 1994 PKU 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 99.4 ± 54 13,20 NA NA NA
Control 53.5 ± 21.3 13,20

1—mean ± standard deviation; 2—patients under diet treatment; 3—patients who discontinued the protein substitution at 18 years of age; 4—serum; 5—folic acid; 6—ng/mL; 7—data were received from authors; 8—25(OH)D; 9—pg/mL; 10—all PKU patients; 11—patients with high adherence; 12—patients with low adherence; 13—nmol/L; 14—median (min–max); 15—pmol/L; 16—mean ± standard error of the mean; 17—cholecalciferol; 18—µmol/L; 19—patients followed a Phe-restrictive diet in childhood and stopped it at the average age of 6 years; 20—plasma; 21—well-controlled; 22—poorly controlled; 23—patients exclusively received phenylalanine-restricted diets; after the age of 20 years, restrictions of phenylalanine differed greatly among patients; 24—25(OH)D3; 25—patients with phenylalanine levels in the blood kept within the recommended values; 26—until the age of 15 years, patients received phenylalanine-restricted diets with phenylalanine-free milk; thereafter, the restrictions of phenylalanine varied among the patients; 27—female participants; 28—male participants; 29—data presented in nmol/g prot; 30—27 had acceptable dietary control and 15 had poor dietary compliance; 31—patients were requested to discontinue their vitamin supplementation for 30 days before the study; 32—red blood cells folate; 33—median (interquartile range); 34—phenylalanine tolerance < 12 mg phenylalanine·kg−1·d−1; 35—phenylalanine tolerance > 12 mg phenylalanine·kg−1·d−1); 36—strict diet; 37—relaxed diet; 38—µg/L; 39—no info about measurement material; 40—ng/L; 41—erythrocyte tocopherol; and 42—no info about measurement unit. PKU—phenylketonuria; NA—not analysed; NI—no information.

Relative differences between groups.

Study Name Year PKU GroupMean Control GroupMean Relative Difference
Folate
Rojas-Agurto et al. [39] 2023 24.52 1,2,3,4 16.25 1,2,3,4 51%
Akış et al. [42] 2020 36.39 1,5 22.61 1,5 61%
Gündüz et al. [43] 2016 32.64 1,3,4,5 22.5 1,3,5 45%
Huemer et al. [46] 2012 7.2 5,6 6.5 5,6 11%
Huemer et al. [26] 2008 15.1 1,2 7.6 1,2 99%
Colomé et al. [44] 2003 49.1 1,5 19.1 1,5 157%
Schulpis et al. [27] 2002 4.21 1,4,5 6.1 1,5 −31%
Lucock et al. [48] 2002 469.1 1,2,7 363.9 1,2,7 29%
Robinson et al. [49] 2000 472.72 4,7,8 201 7,8 135%
Vitamin B12
Rojas-Agurto et al. [39] 2023 518 1,2,4 448.7 1,2 15%
Akış et al. [42] 2020 297.4 1,9 291.4 1,9 2%
Gündüz et al. [43] 2016 287.5 1,4,9 303 1,9 −5%
Huemer et al. [26] 2008 783 1,10 478 1,10 64%
Colomé et al. [44] 2003 622 1,9 455 1,9 37%
Schulpis et al. [27] 2002 175.4 1,9 251 1,9 −30%
Robinson et al. [49] 2000 390.3 4,11,12 411.9 11,12 −5%
Vitamin D
Rojas-Agurto et al. [39] 2023 29.58 1,4,10,13 29.95 1,10,13 −1%
Leiva et al. [47] 2021 38.61 1,2,13 33.84 1,2,13 14%
Ekin et al. [31] 2018 0.43 1,14,15 0.38 1,14,15 13%
Nagasaka et al. [29] 2013 19.9 1,2,16 28.9 1,2,16 −31%
Nagasaka et al. [30] 2011 20.04 1,2,4,16 28.53 1,2,4,16 −30%
Al-Qadreh et al. [41] 1998 45.3 1,4,13 49.16 1,4,13 −8%
Hillman et al. 1996 28.3 1,13,17 22.3 1,13,17 27%
1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D
Nagasaka et al. [29] 2013 55.5 1,10 40.7 1,10 36%
Nagasaka et al. [30] 2011 55.42 1,10 40.94 1,10 35%
Hillman et al. [50] 1996 36.6 1,17 30.4 1,17 20%
Vitamin A
Ekin et al. [31] 2018 2.91 1,15 3.03 1,15 −4%
Mikoluc et al. [28] 2012 3.36 6,15 2.74 6,15 23%
Gassió et al. [32] 2008 1.36 6,18 2.1 6,18 −35%
Vitamin E
Ekin et al. [31] 2018 2.26 1,15 2.39 1,15 −5%
Mikoluc et al. [28] 2012 9.89 6,15 25.4 6,15 −61%
Gassió et al. [32] 2008 20 6,18 21 6,18 −5%
Schulpis et al. [25] 2003 27.74 4,6,15 24 6,15 16%
van Bakel et al. [53] 2000 20.81 4,6,15 20.93 6,15 −1%
Sierra et al. [45] 1998 30.6 18,19 26.07 18,19 17%
Vitamin B6
Schulpis et al. [27] 2002 36.7 1,4,5 60.2 1,5 −39%
Prince et al. [38] 1994 99.4 5,6 53.5 5,6 86%

1—serum; 2—ng/mL; 3—folic acid; 4—merged values from all groups; 5—nmol/L; 6—plasma; 7—red blood cells folate; 8—µg/L; 9—pmol/L; 10—pg/mL; 11—no info about measurement material; 12—ng/L; 13—25(OH)D; 14—cholecalciferol; 15—µmol/L; 16—25(OH)D3; 17—no info about measurement unit; 18—data presented in nmol/g prot; and 19—erythrocyte tocopherol.

Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale.

Study(First Author) Selection Comparability Outcome Overall Score
Cross-Sectional Studies Representativeness of the Sample Sample Size Non-Respondents Ascertainment of Exposure Based on Design and Analysis Assessment of Outcome Statistical Test
Rojas-Agurto et al. [39], 2023 + + + + + 5
Leiva et al. [47], 2021 + + + + + + 6
Akış et al. [42], 2020 + + + + + 5
Ekin et al. [31], 2018 + + + + + 5
Veyrat-Durebex et al. [52], 2017 + + + + + 5
Gündüz et al. [43], 2016 + + + + + 5
Nagasaka et al. [29], 2013 + + + + + 5
Mikoluc et al. [28], 2012 + + + + 4
Mütze et al. [51], 2012 + + + + + 5
Huemer et al. [46], 2012 + + + 3
Nagasaka et al. [30], 2011 + + + + + 5
Gassió et al. [32], 2008 + + + + + + 6
Colomé et al. [44], 2003 + + + + + 5
Schulpis et al. [25], 2003 + + + + + 5
Schulpis et al. [27], 2002 + + + + + 5
Lucock et al. [48], 2002 + + + 3
van Bakel et al. [53], 2000 + + + 3
Robinson et al. [49], 2000 0
Al-Qadreh et al. [41], 1998 + 1
Schulpis et al. [40], 1998 + + + + + 5
Sierra et al. [45], 1998 + + + 3
Hillman et al. [50], 1996 + + + + 4
Prince et al. [38], 1994 + + 2
Study (first author) Selection Comparability Exposure
Case-control study Case definition adequate? Representativeness of the cases Selection of controls Definition of controls Based on design and analysis Ascertainment of exposure Same method for cases and controls Non-response rate Overall score
Huemer et al. [26], 2008 + + + + + + 6

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms25105065/s1.

References

1. Al Hafid, N.; Christodoulou, J. Phenylketonuria: A Review of Current and Future Treatments. Transl. Pediatr.; 2015; 4, pp. 304-317. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2224-4336.2015.10.07] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26835392]

2. Hillert, A.; Anikster, Y.; Belanger-Quintana, A.; Burlina, A.; Burton, B.K.; Carducci, C.; Chiesa, A.E.; Christodoulou, J.; Đorđević, M.; Desviat, L.R. et al. The Genetic Landscape and Epidemiology of Phenylketonuria. Am. J. Hum. Genet.; 2020; 107, pp. 234-250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.06.006]

3. Flydal, M.I.; Martinez, A. Phenylalanine Hydroxylase: Function, Structure, and Regulation. IUBMB Life; 2013; 65, pp. 341-349. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/iub.1150] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23457044]

4. Blau, N.; van Spronsen, F.J.; Levy, H.L. Phenylketonuria. Lancet; 2010; 376, pp. 1417-1427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60961-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20971365]

5. Bickel, H.; Gerrard, J.; Hickmans, E.M. Influence of Phenylalanine Intake on Phenylketonuria. Lancet; 1953; 265, pp. 812-813. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(53)90473-5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13098090]

6. van Spronsen, F.J.; van Wegberg, A.M.; Ahring, K.; Bélanger-Quintana, A.; Blau, N.; Bosch, A.M.; Burlina, A.; Campistol, J.; Feillet, F.; Giżewska, M. et al. Key European Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Phenylketonuria. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol.; 2017; 5, pp. 743-756. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30320-5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28082082]

7. MacDonald, A.; van Wegberg, A.M.J.; Ahring, K.; Beblo, S.; Bélanger-Quintana, A.; Burlina, A.; Campistol, J.; Coşkun, T.; Feillet, F.; Giżewska, M. et al. PKU Dietary Handbook to Accompany PKU Guidelines. Orphanet J. Rare Dis.; 2020; 15, 171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13023-020-01391-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32605583]

8. van Wegberg, A.M.J.; MacDonald, A.; Ahring, K.; Bélanger-Quintana, A.; Blau, N.; Bosch, A.M.; Burlina, A.; Campistol, J.; Feillet, F.; Giżewska, M. et al. The Complete European Guidelines on Phenylketonuria: Diagnosis and Treatment. Orphanet J. Rare Dis.; 2017; 12, 162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13023-017-0685-2] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29025426]

9. Macdonald, A.; Davies, P.; Daly, A.; Hopkins, V.; Hall, S.K.; Asplin, D.; Hendriksz, C.; Chakrapani, A. Does Maternal Knowledge and Parent Education Affect Blood Phenylalanine Control in Phenylketonuria?. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet.; 2008; 21, pp. 351-358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2008.00891.x]

10. Walkowiak, D.; Bukowska-Posadzy, A.; Kałużny, Ł.; Ołtarzewski, M.; Staszewski, R.; Musielak, M.; Walkowiak, J. Therapy Compliance in Children with Phenylketonuria Younger than 5 Years: A Cohort Study. Adv. Clin. Exp. Med.; 2019; 28, pp. 1385-1391. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17219/acem/104536]

11. Jurecki, E.R.; Cederbaum, S.; Kopesky, J.; Perry, K.; Rohr, F.; Sanchez-Valle, A.; Viau, K.S.; Sheinin, M.Y.; Cohen-Pfeffer, J.L. Adherence to Clinic Recommendations among Patients with Phenylketonuria in the United States. Mol. Genet. Metab.; 2017; 120, pp. 190-197. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymgme.2017.01.001] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28162992]

12. Walter, J.H.; White, F.J. Blood Phenylalanine Control in Adolescents with Phenylketonuria. Int. J. Adolesc. Med. Health; 2004; 16, pp. 41-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijamh.2004.16.1.41] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148857]

13. Crone, M.R.; van Spronsen, F.J.; Oudshoorn, K.; Bekhof, J.; van Rijn, G.; Verkerk, P.H. Behavioural Factors Related to Metabolic Control in Patients with Phenylketonuria. J. Inherit. Metab. Dis.; 2005; 28, pp. 627-637. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10545-005-0014-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16151893]

14. Vieira, T.; Nalin, T.; Krug, B.; Bittar, C.; Netto, C.; Schwartz, I. Adherence to Treatment of Phenylketonuria: A Study in Southern Brazilian Patients. J. Inborn Errors Metab. Screen.; 2015; 3, 2326409815579861. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2326409815579861]

15. Kumar Dalei, S.; Adlakha, N. Food Regime for Phenylketonuria: Presenting Complications and Possible Solutions. J. Multidiscip. Healthc.; 2022; 15, pp. 125-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S330845] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35082498]

16. Walkowiak, D.; Domaradzki, J.; Mozrzymas, R.; Korycińska-Chaaban, D.; Duś-Żuchowska, M.; Didycz, B.; Mikołuć, B.; Walkowiak, J. Professional Activity, Gender and Disease-Related Emotions: The Impact on Parents’ Experiences in Caring for Children with Phenylketonuria. Mol. Genet. Metab. Rep.; 2023; 36, 100992. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymgmr.2023.100992] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37502286]

17. Kose, E.; Arslan, N. Vitamin/Mineral and Micronutrient Status in Patients with Classical Phenylketonuria. Clin. Nutr.; 2019; 38, pp. 197-203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2018.01.034] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29433755]

18. van Vliet, K.; Rodenburg, I.L.; van Ginkel, W.G.; Lubout, C.M.A.; Wolffenbuttel, B.H.R.; van der Klauw, M.M.; Heiner-Fokkema, M.R.; van Spronsen, F.J. Biomarkers of Micronutrients in Regular Follow-Up for Tyrosinemia Type 1 and Phenylketonuria Patients. Nutrients; 2019; 11, 2011. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu11092011] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31461828]

19. Walter, J.H. Vitamin B12 Deficiency and Phenylketonuria. Mol. Genet. Metab.; 2011; 104, pp. S52-S54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymgme.2011.07.020]

20. Procházková, D.; Jarkovský, J.; Haňková, Z.; Konečná, P.; Benáková, H.; Vinohradská, H.; Mikušková, A. Long-Term Treatment for Hyperphenylalaninemia and Phenylketonuria: A Risk for Nutritional Vitamin B12 Deficiency?. J. Pediatr. Endocrinol. Metab.; 2015; 28, pp. 1327-1332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jpem-2014-0489]

21. Vugteveen, I.; Hoeksma, M.; Monsen, A.-L.B.; Fokkema, M.R.; Reijngoud, D.-J.; van Rijn, M.; van Spronsen, F.J. Serum Vitamin B12 Concentrations within Reference Values Do Not Exclude Functional Vitamin B12 Deficiency in PKU Patients of Various Ages. Mol. Genet. Metab.; 2011; 102, pp. 13-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymgme.2010.07.004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21030277]

22. MacDonald, A.; Rocha, J.C.; van Rijn, M.; Feillet, F. Nutrition in Phenylketonuria. Mol. Genet. Metab.; 2011; 104, pp. S10-S18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymgme.2011.08.023] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21944460]

23. Mozrzymas, R.; Walkowiak, D.; Drzymała-Czyż, S.; Krzyżanowska-Jankowska, P.; Duś-Żuchowska, M.; Kałużny, Ł.; Walkowiak, J. Vitamin K Status in Adherent and Non-Adherent Patients with Phenylketonuria: A Cross-Sectional Study. Nutrients; 2020; 12, 1772. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu12061772] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32545860]

24. Evans, S.; Daly, A.; MacDonald, J.; Preece, M.A.; Santra, S.; Vijay, S.; Chakrapani, A.; MacDonald, A. The Micronutrient Status of Patients with Phenylketonuria on Dietary Treatment: An Ongoing Challenge. Ann. Nutr. Metab.; 2014; 65, pp. 42-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000363391] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25196394]

25. Schulpis, K.H.; Tsakiris, S.; Karikas, G.A.; Moukas, M.; Behrakis, P. Effect of Diet on Plasma Total Antioxidant Status in Phenylketonuric Patients. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr.; 2003; 57, pp. 383-387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601529] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12571675]

26. Huemer, M.; Födinger, M.; Bodamer, O.A.; Mühl, A.; Herle, M.; Weigmann, C.; Ulmer, H.; Stöckler-Ipsiroglu, S.; Möslinger, D. Total Homocysteine, B-Vitamins and Genetic Polymorphisms in Patients with Classical Phenylketonuria. Mol. Genet. Metab.; 2008; 94, pp. 46-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymgme.2007.12.001] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18249021]

27. Schulpis, K.H.; Karikas, G.A.; Papakonstantinou, E. Homocysteine and Other Vascular Risk Factors in Patients with Phenylketonuria on a Diet. Acta Paediatr.; 2002; 91, pp. 905-909. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/080352502760148612] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12222713]

28. Mikoluc, B.; Motkowski, R.; Karpinska, J.; Amilkiewicz, J.; Didycz, B.; Gizewska, M.; Lange, A.; Milanowski, A.; Nowacka, M.; Sands, D. et al. Impact of Lipophilic Antioxidants and Level of Antibodies against Oxidized Low-Density Lipoprotein in Polish Children with Phenylketonuria. Antioxid. Redox Signal; 2012; 16, pp. 179-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ars.2011.4163] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21895448]

29. Nagasaka, H.; Okano, Y.; Kimura, A.; Mizuochi, T.; Sanayama, Y.; Takatani, T.; Nakagawa, S.; Hasegawa, E.; Hirano, K.; Mochizuki, H. et al. Oxysterol Changes along with Cholesterol and Vitamin D Changes in Adult Phenylketonuric Patients Diagnosed by Newborn Mass-Screening. Clin. Chim. Acta; 2013; 416, pp. 54-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2012.10.011]

30. Nagasaka, H.; Tsukahara, H.; Takatani, T.; Sanayama, Y.; Takayanagi, M.; Ohura, T.; Sakamoto, O.; Ito, T.; Wada, M.; Yoshino, M. et al. Cross-Sectional Study of Bone Metabolism with Nutrition in Adult Classical Phenylketonuric Patients Diagnosed by Neonatal Screening. J. Bone Miner. Metab.; 2011; 29, pp. 737-743. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00774-011-0276-6]

31. Ekin, S.; Dogan, M.; Gok, F.; Karakus, Y. Assessment of Antioxidant Enzymes, Total Sialic Acid, Lipid Bound Sialic Acid, Vitamins and Selected Amino Acids in Children with Phenylketonuria. Pediatr. Res.; 2018; 84, pp. 821-828. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41390-018-0137-2] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30135593]

32. Gassió, R.; Artuch, R.; Vilaseca, M.A.; Fusté, E.; Colome, R.; Campistol, J. Cognitive Functions and the Antioxidant System in Phenylketonuric Patients. Neuropsychology; 2008; 22, pp. 426-431. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.22.4.426] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18590354]

33. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E. et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ; 2021; 372, n71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33782057]

34. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Version 6.4 (Updated August 2023) Cochrane: Cochrane, AB, Canada, 2023; Available online: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current (accessed on 7 February 2024).

35. Bokayeva, K.; Jamka, M.; Walkowiak, D.; Duś-Żuchowska, M.; Herzig, K.-H.; Walkowiak, J. Vitamin Status in Phenylketonuria Patients. PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Available online: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=519589 (accessed on 19 March 2024).

36. Wells, G.A.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.; Peterson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Non-Randomized Studies in Meta-Analyses. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Available online: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed on 7 February 2024).

37. Modesti, P.A.; Reboldi, G.; Cappuccio, F.P.; Agyemang, C.; Remuzzi, G.; Rapi, S.; Perruolo, E.; Parati, G.; Agostoni, P.; Barros, H. et al. Panethnic Differences in Blood Pressure in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE; 2016; 11, e0147601. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147601] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26808317]

38. Prince, A.P.; Leklem, J.E. Vitamin B-6 Status of School-Aged Patients with Phenylketonuria. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.; 1994; 60, pp. 262-268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/60.2.262] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8030605]

39. Rojas-Agurto, E.; Leal-Witt, M.J.; Arias, C.; Cabello, J.F.; Bunout, D.; Cornejo, V. Muscle and Bone Health in Young Chilean Adults with Phenylketonuria and Different Degrees of Compliance with the Phenylalanine Restricted Diet. Nutrients; 2023; 15, 2939. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu15132939] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37447265]

40. Schulpis, K.H.; Nyalala, J.O.; Papakonstantinou, E.D.; Leondiadis, L.; Livaniou, E.; Ithakisios, D.; Georgala, S. Biotin Recycling Impairment in Phenylketonuric Children with Seborrheic Dermatitis. Int. J. Dermatol.; 1998; 37, pp. 918-921. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-4362.1998.00603.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9888332]

41. Al-Qadreh, A.; Schulpis, K.H.; Athanasopoulou, H.; Mengreli, C.; Skarpalezou, A.; Voskaki, I. Bone Mineral Status in Children with Phenylketonuria under Treatment. Acta Paediatr.; 1998; 87, pp. 1162-1166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/080352598750031158] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9846918]

42. Akış, M.; Kant, M.; Işık, İ.; Kısa, P.T.; Köse, E.; Arslan, N.; İşlekel, H. Functional Vitamin B12 Deficiency in Phenylketonuria Patients and Healthy Controls: An Evaluation with Combined Indicator of Vitamin B12 Status as a Biochemical Index. Ann. Clin. Biochem.; 2020; 57, pp. 291-299. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0004563220935140]

43. Gündüz, M.; Çakar, S.; Kuyum, P.; Makay, B.; Arslan, N. Comparison of Atherogenic Risk Factors among Poorly Controlled and Well-Controlled Adolescent Phenylketonuria Patients. Cardiol. Young; 2016; 26, pp. 901-908. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S104795111500150X]

44. Colomé, C.; Artuch, R.; Sierra, C.; Brandi, N.; Lambruschini, N.; Campistol, J.; Vilaseca, M.-A. Plasma Thiols and Their Determinants in Phenylketonuria. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr.; 2003; 57, pp. 964-968. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601631] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12879091]

45. Sierra, C.; Vilaseca, M.A.; Moyano, D.; Brandi, N.; Campistol, J.; Lambruschini, N.; Cambra, F.J.; Deulofeu, R.; Mira, A. Antioxidant Status in Hyperphenylalaninemia. Clin. Chim. Acta; 1998; 276, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0009-8981(98)00091-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9760015]

46. Huemer, M.; Simma, B.; Mayr, D.; Möslinger, D.; Mühl, A.; Schmid, I.; Ulmer, H.; Bodamer, O.A. Free Asymmetric Dimethylarginine (ADMA) Is Low in Children and Adolescents with Classical Phenylketonuria (PKU). J. Inherit. Metab. Dis.; 2012; 35, pp. 817-821. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10545-011-9448-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22290024]

47. Leiva, C.; Bravo, P.; Arias, C.; Cabello, J.F.; Leal-Witt, M.J.; Salazar, F.; Cornejo, V. 25 Hydroxy Vitamin D Level, Bone Health, Vitamin D and Calcium Intake in Chilean Patients with Phenylketonuria and Hyperphenylalaninemias. J. Inborn Errors Metab. Screen.; 2021; 9, e20210004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2326-4594-JIEMS-2021-0004]

48. Lucock, M.; Yates, Z.; Hall, K.; Leeming, R.; Rylance, G.; MacDonald, A.; Green, A. The Impact of Phenylketonuria on Folate Metabolism. Mol. Genet. Metab.; 2002; 76, pp. 305-312. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1096-7192(02)00113-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12208135]

49. Robinson, M.; White, F.J.; Cleary, M.A.; Wraith, E.; Lam, W.K.; Walter, J.H. Increased Risk of Vitamin B12 Deficiency in Patients with Phenylketonuria on an Unrestricted or Relaxed Diet. J. Pediatr.; 2000; 136, pp. 545-547. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3476(00)90022-2] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10753257]

50. Hillman, L.; Schlotzhauer, C.; Lee, D.; Grasela, J.; Witter, S.; Allen, S.; Hillman, R. Decreased Bone Mineralization in Children with Phenylketonuria under Treatment. Eur. J. Pediatr.; 1996; 155, (Suppl. S1), pp. S148-S152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/pl00014234] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8828633]

51. Mütze, U.; Beblo, S.; Kortz, L.; Matthies, C.; Koletzko, B.; Bruegel, M.; Rohde, C.; Thiery, J.; Kiess, W.; Ceglarek, U. Metabolomics of Dietary Fatty Acid Restriction in Patients with Phenylketonuria. PLoS ONE; 2012; 7, e43021. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043021] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22912778]

52. Veyrat-Durebex, C.; Debeissat, C.; Blasco, H.; Patin, F.; Henique, H.; Emond, P.; Antar, C.; Gissot, V.; Herault, O.; Maillot, F. Hyperphenylalaninemia Correlated with Global Decrease of Antioxidant Genes Expression in White Blood Cells of Adult Patients with Phenylketonuria. JIMD Rep.; 2017; 37, pp. 73-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/8904_2017_16]

53. van Bakel, M.M.; Printzen, G.; Wermuth, B.; Wiesmann, U.N. Antioxidant and Thyroid Hormone Status in Selenium-Deficient Phenylketonuric and Hyperphenylalaninemic Patients. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.; 2000; 72, pp. 976-981. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/72.4.976]

54. Montoya Parra, G.A.; Singh, R.H.; Cetinyurek-Yavuz, A.; Kuhn, M.; MacDonald, A. Status of Nutrients Important in Brain Function in Phenylketonuria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Orphanet J. Rare Dis.; 2018; 13, 101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13023-018-0839-x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29941009]

55. McMurry, M.P.; Chan, G.M.; Leonard, C.O.; Ernst, S.L. Bone Mineral Status in Children with Phenylketonuria--Relationship to Nutritional Intake and Phenylalanine Control. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.; 1992; 55, pp. 997-1004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/55.5.997] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1570811]

56. Bushueva, T.V.; Ladodo, K.S.; Spirichev, V.B.; Denisova, S.N.; Rybakova, E.P. Calcium homeostasis and calcium-regulating hormones in young children with phenylketonuria. Vopr. Pitan.; 1993; 3, pp. 16-21.

57. Colomé, C.; Artuch, R.; Vilaseca, M.-A.; Sierra, C.; Brandi, N.; Lambruschini, N.; Cambra, F.J.; Campistol, J. Lipophilic Antioxidants in Patients with Phenylketonuria. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.; 2003; 77, pp. 185-188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/77.1.185] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12499340]

58. Yang, F.; Yao, H.-F.; Wang, C.-J. Effect of Low Phenylalanine Diet on Micro-Nutrients and Anti-Oxidative Capacity in Patients with Phenylketonuria. Matern. Child. Health Care China; 2009; 29, pp. 4539-4541.

59. Dezortová, M.; Hájek, M.; Tintera, J.; Hejcmanová, L.; Syková, E. MR in Phenylketonuria-Related Brain Lesions. Acta Radiol.; 2001; 42, pp. 459-466. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/028418501127347179] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11552882]

60. Sijens, P.E.; Oudkerk, M.; Reijngoud, D.-J.; Leenders, K.L.; de Valk, H.W.; van Spronsen, F.J. 1H MR Chemical Shift Imaging Detection of Phenylalanine in Patients Suffering from Phenylketonuria (PKU). Eur. Radiol.; 2004; 14, pp. 1895-1900. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2388-z]

61. Carmel, R. Nutritional Anemias and the Elderly. Semin. Hematol.; 2008; 45, pp. 225-234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.seminhematol.2008.07.009] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18809092]

62. Dali-Youcef, N.; Andrès, E. An Update on Cobalamin Deficiency in Adults. QJM; 2009; 102, pp. 17-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcn138]

63. Holick, M.F.; Binkley, N.C.; Bischoff-Ferrari, H.A.; Gordon, C.M.; Hanley, D.A.; Heaney, R.P.; Murad, M.H.; Weaver, C.M. Endocrine Society Evaluation, Treatment, and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.; 2011; 96, pp. 1911-1930. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jc.2011-0385]

64. Slominski, A.T.; Tuckey, R.C.; Jetten, A.M.; Holick, M.F. Recent Advances in Vitamin D Biology: Something New under the Sun. J. Investig. Dermatol.; 2023; 143, pp. 2340-2342. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2023.07.003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37791933]

Word count: 13802

Show less

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

The published data on the vitamin status of patients with phenylketonuria (PKU) is contradictory; therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the vitamin status of PKU patients. A comprehensive search of multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Scopus) was finished in March 2024. The included studies compared vitamin levels between individuals diagnosed with early-treated PKU and healthy controls while excluding pregnant and lactating women, untreated PKU or hyperphenylalaninemia cases, control groups receiving vitamin supplementation, PKU patients receiving tetrahydrobiopterin or pegvaliase, and conference abstracts. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed by the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. The effect sizes were expressed as standardised mean differences. The calculation of effect sizes with 95% CI using fixed-effects models and random-effects models was performed. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024519589). Out of the initially identified 11,086 articles, 24 met the criteria. The total number of participants comprised 770 individuals with PKU and 2387 healthy controls. The meta-analyses of cross-sectional and case–control studies were conducted for vitamin B12, D, A, E, B6 and folate levels. PKU patients demonstrated significantly higher folate levels (random-effects model, SMD: 1.378, 95% CI: 0.436, 2.320, p = 0.004) and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D concentrations (random-effects model, SMD: 2.059, 95% CI: 0.250, 3.868, p = 0.026) compared to the controls. There were no significant differences in vitamin A, E, B6, B12 or 25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels. The main limitations of the evidence include a limited number of studies and their heterogeneity and variability in patients’ compliance. Our findings suggest that individuals with PKU under nutritional guidance can achieve a vitamin status comparable to that of healthy subjects. Our study provides valuable insights into the nutritional status of PKU patients, but further research is required to confirm these findings and explore additional factors influencing vitamin status in PKU.

Details

Title
Vitamin Status in Patients with Phenylketonuria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Author
Bokayeva, Kamila 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Jamka, Małgorzata 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Walkowiak, Dariusz 2   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Duś-Żuchowska, Monika 1 ; Herzig, Karl-Heinz 3   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Walkowiak, Jarosław 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo 

1  Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Metabolic Diseases, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Szpitalna Str. 27/33, 60-572 Poznań, Poland; [email protected] (K.B.); [email protected] (M.J.); [email protected] (M.D.-Ż.); [email protected] (K.-H.H.) 
2  Department of Organization and Management in Health Care, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Przybyszewskiego Str. 39, 60-356 Poznań, Poland; [email protected] 
3  Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Metabolic Diseases, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Szpitalna Str. 27/33, 60-572 Poznań, Poland; [email protected] (K.B.); [email protected] (M.J.); [email protected] (M.D.-Ż.); [email protected] (K.-H.H.); Research Unit of Biomedicine and Internal Medicine, Biocenter of Oulu, Medical Research Center, Oulu University Hospital, University of Oulu, Aapistie Str. 5, 90220 Oulu, Finland 
First page
5065
Publication year
2024
Publication date
2024
Publisher
MDPI AG
ISSN
16616596
e-ISSN
14220067
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25105065
ProQuest document ID
3059423957
Copyright
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.