Applying inappropriate cutoffs leads to misinterpretation of folate status in the US population.
Folate cutoffs for risk of deficiency compared with possible deficiency were originally derived differently (experimental compared with epidemiologic data), and their interpretations are different. The matching of cutoffs derived from one assay with population-based data derived from another assay requires caution.



We assessed the extent of folate-status misinterpretation with the use of inappropriate cutoffs.



In the cross-sectional NHANES, serum and red blood cell (RBC) folate were first measured with the use of a radioprotein-binding assay (RPBA) (1988-2006) and, afterwards, with the use of a microbiologic assay (2007-2010). We compared prevalence estimates for assay-matched cutoffs (e.g., with the use of an RPBA cutoff with RPBA data) and assay-mismatched cutoffs (e.g., with the use of microbiologic assay cutoff with RPBA data) for risk of deficiency on the basis of megaloblastic anemia as a hematologic indicator in persons ≥4 y of age (e.g., serum folate concentration <7 nmol/L and RBC folate concentration <305 nmol/L derived with the use of a microbiologic assay), possible deficiency on the basis of rising homocysteine as a metabolic indicator in persons ≥4 y of age (e.g., serum folate concentration <10 nmol/L and RBC folate concentration <340 nmol/L derived with the use of an RPBA), and insufficiency on the basis of elevated risk of neural tube defects in women 12-49 y old (e.g., RBC folate concentration <906 nmol/L derived with the use of a microbiologic assay).



Pre-folic acid fortification (1988-1994), risks of deficiency for assay-matched compared with assay-mismatched cutoffs were 5.6% compared with 16% (serum folate), respectively, and 7.4% compared with 28% (RBC folate), respectively; risks declined postfortification (1999-2006) to <1% compared with <1% (serum folate), respectively, and to <1% compared with 2.5% (RBC folate), respectively. Prefortification (1988-1994), risks of possible deficiency for assay-matched compared with assay-mismatched cutoffs were 35% compared with 56% (serum folate), respectively, and 37% compared with 84% (RBC folate), respectively; risks declined postfortification (1999-2006) to 1.9% compared with 7.0% (serum folate), respectively, and to 4.8% compared with 53% (RBC folate), respectively. Postfortification (2007-2010), risks of insufficiency were 3% (assay matched) compared with 39% (assay mismatched), respectively.



The application of assay-mismatched cutoffs leads to a misinterpretation of folate status. This confusion likely applies to clinical assays because no comparability data are available, to our knowledge.
National Center for Environmental Health, cfp8@cdc.gov.
Christine M
CM
Pfeiffer
National Center for Environmental Health.
Maya R
MR
Sternberg
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, and.
Heather C
HC
Hamner
National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, CDC, Atlanta, GA.
Krista S
KS
Crider
National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, Hyattsville, MD.
David A
DA
Lacher
World Health Organization Geneva, Switzerland.
Lisa M
LM
Rogers
Nutrition Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN; and.|Office of Dietary Supplements, NIH, Bethesda, MD.
Regan L
RL
Bailey
Office of Dietary Supplements, NIH, Bethesda, MD.
Elizabeth A
EA
Yetley
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005260:Female; D005492:Folic Acid / Q000097:blood* / Q000592:standards*; D005494:Folic Acid Deficiency / Q000097:blood / Q000453:epidemiology; D005527:Food, Fortified; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009436:Neural Tube Defects / Q000097:blood / Q000453:epidemiology; D009749:Nutrition Surveys; D015995:Prevalence; D012016:Reference Values; D012307:Risk Factors; D014481:United States; D055815:Young Adult
D005492:Folic Acid
NHANES; deficiency; insufficiency; microbiologic assay; radioprotein-binding assay
J Nutr. 2012 May;142(5):886-93
22437563
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2015 Jun;103(6):517-26
25884850
Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Jul;94(1):322S-331S
21593508
Am J Clin Nutr. 2015 Jun;101(6):1286-94
25788000
Am J Hematol. 1987 Oct;26(2):199-207
3310615
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Sep;86(3):718-27
17823438
Methods Enzymol. 1997;281:43-53
9250965
J Nutr. 2015 Jul;145(7):1636S-1680S
26451605
J Nutr. 2012 May;142(5):894-900
22437557
CMAJ. 2011 Feb 8;183(2):E100-6
21149516
Clin Chem. 1996 Oct;42(10):1689-94
8855155
Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Jul;94(1):303S-312S
21593502
Vital Health Stat 11. 1998 Dec;(243):1-78
10222835
World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1968;405:5-37
4975372
Food Nutr Bull. 2008 Jun;29(2 Suppl):S67-73
18709882
J Am Coll Nutr. 2005 Aug;24(4):266-74
16093404
J Nutr. 2011 Jul;141(7):1402-9
21613453
Food Nutr Bull. 2008 Jun;29(2 Suppl):S238-44
18709899
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Aug;82(2):442-50
16087991
Clin Chem. 2007 Apr;53(4):781-4
17272488
Adv Nutr. 2016 Jan 15;7(1):112-20
26773019
J Nutr. 2006 Jan;136(1):153-8
16365075
Clin Chem. 2008 Jan;54(1):197-201
18160726