Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Introduction: To descriptively compare nutritional content of prescription to nonprescription prenatal vitamins (PNVs) through consideration of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommendations for a healthy pregnancy.
Methods: We utilized 2 publicly available online databases, Dietary Supplement Label Database and DailyMed, to obtain a list of all currently available PNVs. Inclusion criteria was based on initial search results from keyword 'prenatal.' Exclusion criteria were single ingredient supplements, or duplicates. Duplicates were supplements listed separately because of different package forms for sales purposes, but were identical (i.e. same manufacturer, nutritional label/content), or those present in both databases. PNV ingredients were recorded from nutritional labels and compared to ACOG micro-nutrient guidelines.
Results: We obtained a total sample of 307 PNVs (110 prescription, 197 nonprescription). Of the prescription PNVs, 0% met calcium requirements, 100% met folic acid requirements, 82% met iron requirements, and 16% met vitamin D requirements. Of the nonprescription PNVs, 8% met calcium requirements, 98% met folic acid requirements, 11% met iron requirements, and 33% met vitamin D requirements. Each PNV was assigned a score from 0-4, based on the number of the 4 ACOG supplementation recommendations they met. Of the prescription PNVs, 12% scored ≥ 3, and 20% of the nonprescription PNVs scored ≥ 3. No single prescription PNV met all 4 ACOG recommendations, and 2 nonprescription PNVs did.
Conclusion/Implications: We found no meaningful difference in nutritional adequacy of prescription versus nonprescription PNVs with respect to ACOG recommendations. Tailored supplementation should be considered as an alternative to PNVs.
Methods: We utilized 2 publicly available online databases, Dietary Supplement Label Database and DailyMed, to obtain a list of all currently available PNVs. Inclusion criteria was based on initial search results from keyword 'prenatal.' Exclusion criteria were single ingredient supplements, or duplicates. Duplicates were supplements listed separately because of different package forms for sales purposes, but were identical (i.e. same manufacturer, nutritional label/content), or those present in both databases. PNV ingredients were recorded from nutritional labels and compared to ACOG micro-nutrient guidelines.
Results: We obtained a total sample of 307 PNVs (110 prescription, 197 nonprescription). Of the prescription PNVs, 0% met calcium requirements, 100% met folic acid requirements, 82% met iron requirements, and 16% met vitamin D requirements. Of the nonprescription PNVs, 8% met calcium requirements, 98% met folic acid requirements, 11% met iron requirements, and 33% met vitamin D requirements. Each PNV was assigned a score from 0-4, based on the number of the 4 ACOG supplementation recommendations they met. Of the prescription PNVs, 12% scored ≥ 3, and 20% of the nonprescription PNVs scored ≥ 3. No single prescription PNV met all 4 ACOG recommendations, and 2 nonprescription PNVs did.
Conclusion/Implications: We found no meaningful difference in nutritional adequacy of prescription versus nonprescription PNVs with respect to ACOG recommendations. Tailored supplementation should be considered as an alternative to PNVs.
Introduction: To descriptively compare nutritional content of prescription to nonprescription prenatal vitamins (PNVs) through consideration of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommendations for a healthy pregnancy.
Methods: We utilized 2 publicly available online databases, Dietary Supplement Label Database and DailyMed, to obtain a list of all currently available PNVs. Inclusion criteria was based on initial search results from keyword 'prenatal.' Exclusion criteria were single ingredient supplements, or duplicates. Duplicates were supplements listed separately because of different package forms for sales purposes, but were identical (i.e. same manufacturer, nutritional label/content), or those present in both databases. PNV ingredients were recorded from nutritional labels and compared to ACOG micro-nutrient guidelines.
Results: We obtained a total sample of 307 PNVs (110 prescription, 197 nonprescription). Of the prescription PNVs, 0% met calcium requirements, 100% met folic acid requirements, 82% met iron requirements, and 16% met vitamin D requirements. Of the nonprescription PNVs, 8% met calcium requirements, 98% met folic acid requirements, 11% met iron requirements, and 33% met vitamin D requirements. Each PNV was assigned a score from 0-4, based on the number of the 4 ACOG supplementation recommendations they met. Of the prescription PNVs, 12% scored ≥ 3, and 20% of the nonprescription PNVs scored ≥ 3. No single prescription PNV met all 4 ACOG recommendations, and 2 nonprescription PNVs did.
Conclusion/Implications: We found no meaningful difference in nutritional adequacy of prescription versus nonprescription PNVs with respect to ACOG recommendations. Tailored supplementation should be considered as an alternative to PNVs.
Methods: We utilized 2 publicly available online databases, Dietary Supplement Label Database and DailyMed, to obtain a list of all currently available PNVs. Inclusion criteria was based on initial search results from keyword 'prenatal.' Exclusion criteria were single ingredient supplements, or duplicates. Duplicates were supplements listed separately because of different package forms for sales purposes, but were identical (i.e. same manufacturer, nutritional label/content), or those present in both databases. PNV ingredients were recorded from nutritional labels and compared to ACOG micro-nutrient guidelines.
Results: We obtained a total sample of 307 PNVs (110 prescription, 197 nonprescription). Of the prescription PNVs, 0% met calcium requirements, 100% met folic acid requirements, 82% met iron requirements, and 16% met vitamin D requirements. Of the nonprescription PNVs, 8% met calcium requirements, 98% met folic acid requirements, 11% met iron requirements, and 33% met vitamin D requirements. Each PNV was assigned a score from 0-4, based on the number of the 4 ACOG supplementation recommendations they met. Of the prescription PNVs, 12% scored ≥ 3, and 20% of the nonprescription PNVs scored ≥ 3. No single prescription PNV met all 4 ACOG recommendations, and 2 nonprescription PNVs did.
Conclusion/Implications: We found no meaningful difference in nutritional adequacy of prescription versus nonprescription PNVs with respect to ACOG recommendations. Tailored supplementation should be considered as an alternative to PNVs.
The Nutritional Adequacy of Prescription versus Nonprescription Prenatal Vitamins
Elli Tian
Affiliations:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Medicine
University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Medicine
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Introduction: To descriptively compare nutritional content of prescription to nonprescription prenatal vitamins (PNVs) through consideration of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommendations for a healthy pregnancy.
Methods: We utilized 2 publicly available online databases, Dietary Supplement Label Database and DailyMed, to obtain a list of all currently available PNVs. Inclusion criteria was based on initial search results from keyword 'prenatal.' Exclusion criteria were single ingredient supplements, or duplicates. Duplicates were supplements listed separately because of different package forms for sales purposes, but were identical (i.e. same manufacturer, nutritional label/content), or those present in both databases. PNV ingredients were recorded from nutritional labels and compared to ACOG micro-nutrient guidelines.
Results: We obtained a total sample of 307 PNVs (110 prescription, 197 nonprescription). Of the prescription PNVs, 0% met calcium requirements, 100% met folic acid requirements, 82% met iron requirements, and 16% met vitamin D requirements. Of the nonprescription PNVs, 8% met calcium requirements, 98% met folic acid requirements, 11% met iron requirements, and 33% met vitamin D requirements. Each PNV was assigned a score from 0-4, based on the number of the 4 ACOG supplementation recommendations they met. Of the prescription PNVs, 12% scored ≥ 3, and 20% of the nonprescription PNVs scored ≥ 3. No single prescription PNV met all 4 ACOG recommendations, and 2 nonprescription PNVs did.
Conclusion/Implications: We found no meaningful difference in nutritional adequacy of prescription versus nonprescription PNVs with respect to ACOG recommendations. Tailored supplementation should be considered as an alternative to PNVs.
Methods: We utilized 2 publicly available online databases, Dietary Supplement Label Database and DailyMed, to obtain a list of all currently available PNVs. Inclusion criteria was based on initial search results from keyword 'prenatal.' Exclusion criteria were single ingredient supplements, or duplicates. Duplicates were supplements listed separately because of different package forms for sales purposes, but were identical (i.e. same manufacturer, nutritional label/content), or those present in both databases. PNV ingredients were recorded from nutritional labels and compared to ACOG micro-nutrient guidelines.
Results: We obtained a total sample of 307 PNVs (110 prescription, 197 nonprescription). Of the prescription PNVs, 0% met calcium requirements, 100% met folic acid requirements, 82% met iron requirements, and 16% met vitamin D requirements. Of the nonprescription PNVs, 8% met calcium requirements, 98% met folic acid requirements, 11% met iron requirements, and 33% met vitamin D requirements. Each PNV was assigned a score from 0-4, based on the number of the 4 ACOG supplementation recommendations they met. Of the prescription PNVs, 12% scored ≥ 3, and 20% of the nonprescription PNVs scored ≥ 3. No single prescription PNV met all 4 ACOG recommendations, and 2 nonprescription PNVs did.
Conclusion/Implications: We found no meaningful difference in nutritional adequacy of prescription versus nonprescription PNVs with respect to ACOG recommendations. Tailored supplementation should be considered as an alternative to PNVs.
Introduction: To descriptively compare nutritional content of prescription to nonprescription prenatal vitamins (PNVs) through consideration of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommendations for a healthy pregnancy.
Methods: We utilized 2 publicly available online databases, Dietary Supplement Label Database and DailyMed, to obtain a list of all currently available PNVs. Inclusion criteria was based on initial search results from keyword 'prenatal.' Exclusion criteria were single ingredient supplements, or duplicates. Duplicates were supplements listed separately because of different package forms for sales purposes, but were identical (i.e. same manufacturer, nutritional label/content), or those present in both databases. PNV ingredients were recorded from nutritional labels and compared to ACOG micro-nutrient guidelines.
Results: We obtained a total sample of 307 PNVs (110 prescription, 197 nonprescription). Of the prescription PNVs, 0% met calcium requirements, 100% met folic acid requirements, 82% met iron requirements, and 16% met vitamin D requirements. Of the nonprescription PNVs, 8% met calcium requirements, 98% met folic acid requirements, 11% met iron requirements, and 33% met vitamin D requirements. Each PNV was assigned a score from 0-4, based on the number of the 4 ACOG supplementation recommendations they met. Of the prescription PNVs, 12% scored ≥ 3, and 20% of the nonprescription PNVs scored ≥ 3. No single prescription PNV met all 4 ACOG recommendations, and 2 nonprescription PNVs did.
Conclusion/Implications: We found no meaningful difference in nutritional adequacy of prescription versus nonprescription PNVs with respect to ACOG recommendations. Tailored supplementation should be considered as an alternative to PNVs.
Methods: We utilized 2 publicly available online databases, Dietary Supplement Label Database and DailyMed, to obtain a list of all currently available PNVs. Inclusion criteria was based on initial search results from keyword 'prenatal.' Exclusion criteria were single ingredient supplements, or duplicates. Duplicates were supplements listed separately because of different package forms for sales purposes, but were identical (i.e. same manufacturer, nutritional label/content), or those present in both databases. PNV ingredients were recorded from nutritional labels and compared to ACOG micro-nutrient guidelines.
Results: We obtained a total sample of 307 PNVs (110 prescription, 197 nonprescription). Of the prescription PNVs, 0% met calcium requirements, 100% met folic acid requirements, 82% met iron requirements, and 16% met vitamin D requirements. Of the nonprescription PNVs, 8% met calcium requirements, 98% met folic acid requirements, 11% met iron requirements, and 33% met vitamin D requirements. Each PNV was assigned a score from 0-4, based on the number of the 4 ACOG supplementation recommendations they met. Of the prescription PNVs, 12% scored ≥ 3, and 20% of the nonprescription PNVs scored ≥ 3. No single prescription PNV met all 4 ACOG recommendations, and 2 nonprescription PNVs did.
Conclusion/Implications: We found no meaningful difference in nutritional adequacy of prescription versus nonprescription PNVs with respect to ACOG recommendations. Tailored supplementation should be considered as an alternative to PNVs.
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}