Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2013
Double-balloon jejunal perfusion to compare absorption of vitamin E and vitamin E acetate in healthy volunteers under maldigestion conditions.
Trial report in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can vitamin E ester derivatives be excellent alternatives of vitamin E: state of art.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2023Pooled it
- Exploring the link between fat-soluble vitamins and aging-associated immune system status: a literature review.Immunity & ageing : I & A · 2025Review
- Vitamin E Bioavailability: Mechanisms of Intestinal Absorption in the Spotlight.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe vitamin E derivative, α-tocopheryl acetate, is often included in formulations used in enteral nutrition. In this respect, we compared α-tocopherol and α-tocopheryl acetate absorption under 'maldigestion' conditions, such as occurring during enteral tube feeding, using differentially labeled RRR-[5,7-methyl-((2)H(6))]-α-tocopherol and RRR-[5-methyl-(2)H(3)]-α-tocopheryl acetate allowing direct comparison between free and esterified forms. SUBJECTS/
methodsThe two derivatives were given together in a single dose to six volunteers directly into the jejunum using a double-balloon perfusion system. Perfusion lasted for 1 h, and the collected blood and effluent samples were analyzed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.
resultsIn the isolated 20-cm length of exposed jejunum, on average ~ 6% of the two vitamin E forms were absorbed >1 h based on subtraction of effluent from influent. There was substantial difference in the absolute absorbed quantity between individuals, but no significant differences were observed in the absorption between the two labeled forms as assessed in the plasma. (2)H(3)-α-tocopherol was not present in the influent, but appeared in the effluent, indicating that the acetylated form of vitamin E is cleaved by brush border enzymes in the small intestine.
conclusionsThis study shows that even in the absence of digestive enzymes and bile salts, the appropriately solubilized acetylated form of α-tocopherol exhibits the same bioavailability as free α-tocopherol. This suggests that both forms can be absorbed equally under maldigestion conditions such as present clinically during enteral tube feeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.