To the Editor:
Serum zinc concentration (SZC) is generally accepted as the best indicator of population zinc status [1], but there is limited information on SZC worldwide [2]. Pullakhandam et al. [3] have previously reported SZC results from the Indian Comprehensive National Nutrition Survey (ICNNS) conducted from 2016 to 2018 [4], which indicated a high prevalence of zinc deficiency among children and adolescents, based on SZC cutoffs proposed by the International Zinc Nutrition Consultative Group (IZiNCG) [5]. These “IZiNCG cutoffs” were derived from the distribution of SZC values observed among a sample of presumably healthy US children assessed in 1976–80 [6] and largely confirmed in a subsequent survey [7]. As noted previously [8], the findings from the ICNNS seem plausible, and they warrant consideration of public health interventions to reduce the risk of zinc deficiency. However, in a recent article published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition [9], Pullakhandam et al. reanalyzed the ICNNS data using lower SZC cutoffs, based on the distribution of values among a presumably healthy subset of individuals assessed in the same national survey, and concluded that zinc deficiency is not a serious public health problem in India. These apparently contradictory results highlight several issues regarding appropriate biomarker cutoffs for identifying zinc and other micronutrient deficiencies.
Biomarker cutoffs used to indicate a nutrient deficiency can be established using two different conceptual approaches. Ideally, these cutoffs are based on the level of the marker at which clinical signs of disease or functional or metabolic disorders begin to appear. However, in situations where such relationships have not been unequivocally established, an alternative approach is to examine the distribution of the biomarker values in presumably healthy, non-malnourished populations and apply a statistical definition (usually the 2.5 percentile) to distinguish between “normal status” and an increased risk of deficiency. The latter approach is less suitable for two possible reasons. First, the reference population might have considerably higher status than needed to prevent adverse outcomes, so the cutoff could be higher than necessary. Second, the reference population may not in fact be healthy, which could yield a lower cutoff than desirable.
In the case of SZC, Wessells et al. found a clear relationship between SZC and the presence of clinical signs of zinc deficiency, both in adult volunteers exposed to experimental zinc deficiency and in patients with acrodermatitis enterpathica [10]. However, as often occurs with nutritional biomarkers, there were overlapping distributions of SZC among those with and without deficiency signs, so no single cutoff provided perfect discrimination. In such cases, establishing a cutoff requires a tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity and judgement regarding which is more important in a particular situation. Such decisions may involve consideration of 1) the related disease severity, which if severe would call for applying greater sensitivity (higher cutoff, fewer false negatives), and 2) the cost of interventions relative to available resources and any potential adverse effects of these interventions, which would argue for greater specificity (lower cutoff, fewer false positives). In the case of zinc deficiency, where the consequences may be severe [11, 12], greater sensitivity seems preferable to allow for intervention before clinical deficiency signs become apparent. Nevertheless, individual countries might choose to apply a lower cutoff if they are willing to tolerate a greater risk of deficiency or available resources only permit limited intervention.
The use of different country-specific cutoffs poses a dilemma with regard to tracking deficiency prevalence globally and related resource allocations. One possible solution would be to agree on a single global cutoff for tracking purposes, while individual countries could determine local cutoffs to trigger programmatic responses. In cases where the cutoff is based on statistical criteria, the reference population must be healthy, adequately nourished, and ideally representative of the global population, not just a single country.
Addressing this set of issues will require global consensus on best practices to develop appropriate biomarker cutoffs to define MN deficiency (and excess) and efforts to compile or collect relevant data. The Micronutrient Forum has recently established the Data Innovation Alliance (DInA) to facilitate this process. DInA is engaging micronutrient data users and producers at global and national levels to generate consensus recommendations to ensure that micronutrient data are both consistent globally and relevant for national decision makers.
In summary, the Indian nutrition and public health communities should be applauded for generating data on the population’s zinc status. As new data become available, they should be reported according to international consensus criteria; but the interpretation of these results and related policymaking are the responsibility and prerogative of national stakeholders.
References
King JC, Brown KH, Gibson RS, Krebs NF, Lowe NM. Biomarkers of nutrition for development – Zinc review. J Nutr. 2016;115:220079. 10.3945/jn
Hess SY. National risk of zinc deficiency as estimated by national surveys. Food Nutr Bull. 2017;38:3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0379572116689000
Pullakhandam R, Agrawal P, Peter R, Ghosh S, Reddy GB, Kulkarni B, et al. Prevalence of low serum 96 zinc concentrations in Indian children and adolescents – Findings from the Comprehensive 97 National Nutrition Survey 2016-18. Am J Clin Nutr. 2021;114:638–48.
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, UNICEF, Population Council. Comprehensive National Nutrition Survey (CNNS) National Report. New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, and UNICEF, 2019.
Brown KH, Rivera JA, Bhutta Z, Gibson RS, King JC, Lonnerdal B, et al. International Zinc Nutrition 104 Consultative Group (IZiNCG) technical document #1. Assessment of the risk of zinc deficiency in 105 populations and options for its control. Food Nutr Bull. 2004;25:S99–203.
Hotz C, Peerson JM, Brown KH. Suggested lower cutoffs of serum zinc concentrations for assessing zinc status: reanalysis of the second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data (1976-1980). Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;78:756–64.
Hennigar SR, Lieberman HR, Fulgoni VL III, McClung JP. Serum zinc concentrations in the US population are related to sex, age, and time of blood draw but not dietary or supplemental zinc. J Nutr. 2018;148:1341–51.
Brown KH, McDonald CM, Wessells KR, Hess SY. Testing metal, proving mettle – findings from the 2016-2018 India National Nutrition Survey regarding the prevalence of low serum zinc concentrations among children and adolescents, and their implications for public health. Am J Clin Nutr. 2021;114:407–9.
Pullakhandam R, Ghosh S, Kulkarni B, Reddy GB, Rajkumar H, Kapil U, et al. Reference cut-offs to 121 define low serum zinc concentrations in healthy 1-19 year old Indian children and adolescents. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-022-01088-4.
Wessells KR, King JC, Brown KH. Development of a plasma zinc concentration cutoff to identify individuals with severe zinc deficiency based on results from adults undergoing experimental severe dietary zinc restriction and individuals with acrodermatitis enteropathica. J Nutr. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.114.191585
Mayo-Wilson E, Junior JA, Imdad A, Dean S, Chan XHS, Chan ES, et al. Zinc supplementation for 131 preventing mortality, morbidity, and growth failure in children aged 6 months to 12 years of 132 age. Database Syst Rev. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009384.pub2.
Brown KH, Peerson JM, Baker SK, Hess SY. Preventive zinc supplementation among infants, pre-schoolers, and older pre-pubertal children. Food Nutr Bull. 2009;30:S12–S40.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the writing of the paper
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
KHB reports that he is an unpaid member of the Steering Committee of the International Zinc Nutrition Consultative Group (IZiNCG), which is referred to in this correspondence. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Brown, K.H., Atkin, R., Gorstein, J. et al. Comments on article by Pullakhandam et al: Reference cut-offs to define low serum zinc concentrations in healthy 1-19 year old Indian children and adolescents. Eur J Clin Nutr 76, 1204–1205 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-022-01174-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-022-01174-7
This article is cited by
-
Response to Comments from Brown et al. (ref: 2021EJCN0980RR)
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2022)