Dataset Information

Efficacy of vitamin and antioxidant supplements in prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the efficacy of vitamin and antioxidant supplements in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

Design

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources and study selection

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov searched in June and November 2012. Two authors independently reviewed and selected eligible randomised controlled trials, based on predetermined selection criteria.

Results

Out of 2240 articles retrieved from databases and relevant bibliographies, 50 randomised controlled trials with 294,478 participants (156,663 in intervention groups and 137,815 in control groups) were included in the final analyses. In a fixed effect meta-analysis of the 50 trials, supplementation with vitamins and antioxidants was not associated with reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.02; I(2)=42%). Overall, there was no beneficial effect of these supplements in the subgroup meta-analyses by type of prevention, type of vitamins and antioxidants, type of cardiovascular outcomes, study design, methodological quality, duration of treatment, funding source, provider of supplements, type of control, number of participants in each trial, and supplements given singly or in combination with other supplements. Among the subgroup meta-analyses by type of cardiovascular outcomes, vitamin and antioxidant supplementation was associated with a marginally increased risk of angina pectoris, while low dose vitamin B(6) supplementation was associated with a slightly decreased risk of major cardiovascular events. Those beneficial or harmful effects disappeared in subgroup meta-analysis of high quality randomised controlled trials within each category. Also, even though supplementation with vitamin B(6) was associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular death in high quality trials, and vitamin E supplementation with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction, those beneficial effects were seen only in randomised controlled trials in which the supplements were supplied by the pharmaceutical industry.

Conclusion

There is no evidence to support the use of vitamin and antioxidant supplements for prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

SUBMITTER: Myung SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3548618 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:It is unclear whether supplementation with vitamin D reduces the risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, and data from randomized trials are limited. METHODS:We conducted a nationwide, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, with a two-by-two factorial design, of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) at a dose of 2000 IU per day and marine n-3 (also called omega-3) fatty acids at a dose of 1 g per day for the prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease among men 50 years of age or older and women 55 years of age or older in the United States. Primary end points were invasive cancer of any type and major cardiovascular events (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes). Secondary end points included site-specific cancers, death from cancer, and additional cardiovascular events. This article reports the results of the comparison of vitamin D with placebo. RESULTS:A total of 25,871 participants, including 5106 black participants, underwent randomization. Supplementation with vitamin D was not associated with a lower risk of either of the primary end points. During a median follow-up of 5.3 years, cancer was diagnosed in 1617 participants (793 in the vitamin D group and 824 in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88 to 1.06; P=0.47). A major cardiovascular event occurred in 805 participants (396 in the vitamin D group and 409 in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.12; P=0.69). In the analyses of secondary end points, the hazard ratios were as follows: for death from cancer (341 deaths), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.02); for breast cancer, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.31); for prostate cancer, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.07); for colorectal cancer, 1.09 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.62); for the expanded composite end point of major cardiovascular events plus coronary revascularization, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.08); for myocardial infarction, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19); for stroke, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.20); and for death from cardiovascular causes, 1.11 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.40). In the analysis of death from any cause (978 deaths), the hazard ratio was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.12). No excess risks of hypercalcemia or other adverse events were identified. CONCLUSIONS:Supplementation with vitamin D did not result in a lower incidence of invasive cancer or cardiovascular events than placebo. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; VITAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01169259 .).

Project description:BackgroundTo assess the blood pressure and lipid-lowering efficacy and tolerability of 'polypills' used in cardiovascular disease prevention trials.Methodology/principal findingsSystematic review and meta-analysis.Search strategyThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, and PubMed databases were searched for eligible trials. Study inclusion criteria: Randomised controlled trials of at least six weeks duration, which compared a 'polypill' (that included at least one anti-hypertensive and one lipid-lowering medication) with a placebo (or one active component).Outcome measuresChange from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressures, and total and LDL-cholesterol; discontinuation of study medication and reported adverse effects. Of 44 potentially eligible studies, six trials (including 2,218 patients without previous cardiovascular disease) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, 'polypills' reduced systolic blood pressure by -9.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI): -13.4, -5.0) diastolic blood pressure by -5.0 mmHg (95%CI: -7.4, -2.6), total cholesterol by -1.22 mmol/L (95%CI: -1.60, -0.84) and LDL-cholesterol by -1.02 mmol/L (95%CI: -1.37, -0.67). However, those taking a 'polypill' (vs. placebo or component) were more likely to discontinue medication (20% vs 14%) (Odds ratio: 1.5 (95% CI: 1.2, 1.9)). There was no significant difference in reported adverse effects amongst those on a 'polypill' (36% vs. 28%) (OR: 1.3 (95%CI: 0.7, 2.5)). There was high statistical heterogeneity in comparisons for blood pressure and lipid-lowering but use of random-effects and quality-effects models produced very similar results.Conclusions/significanceCompared with placebo, the 'polypills' reduced blood pressure and lipids. Tolerability was lower amongst those on 'polypills' than those on placebo or one component, but differences were moderate. Effectiveness trials are needed to help clarify the status of 'polypills' in primary care and prevention strategies.

Project description:ObjectiveCardiovascular diseases (CVD) are a leading cause of mortality and disease burden. Preventative interventions to augment the population-level adoption of health lifestyle behaviours that reduce CVD risk are a priority. Face-to-face interventions afford individualisation and are effective for improving health-related behaviours and outcomes, but they are costly and resource intensive. Electronic and mobile health (e- and mHealth) approaches aimed at modifying lifestyle risk factors may be an effective and scalable approach to reach many individuals while preserving individualisation. This systematic review aims to (a) determine the effectiveness of multifactorial e- and mHealth interventions on CVD risk and on lifestyle-related cardiometabolic risk factors and self-management behaviours among adults without CVD; and (b) describe the evidence on adverse events and on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions.MethodsMethods were detailed prior to the start of the review in order to improve conduct and prevent inconsistent decision making throughout the review. This protocol was prepared following the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register and CENTRAL electronic databases will be searched between 1991 and September 2019. Eligibility criteria are: (a) population: community-dwelling adults; (b) intervention/comparison: randomised controlled trials comparing e- or mHealth CVD risk preventative interventions with usual care; and (c) outcomes: modifiable CVD risk factors. Selection of study reports will involve two authors independently screening titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review of potentially eligible reports. Two authors will independently undertake data extraction and assess risk of bias. Where appropriate, meta-analysis of outcome data will be performed.DiscussionThis protocol describes the pre-specified methods for a systematic review that will provide quantitative and narrative syntheses of current multifactorial e- and mHealth CVD preventative interventions. A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted following the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported according to PRISMA guidelines.

Project description:IntroductionInflammation is emerging as an important risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and has been a recent target for many novel therapeutic agents. However, comparative evidence regarding efficacy of these anti-inflammatory treatment options is currently lacking.Methods and analysisThis systematic review will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of anti-inflammatory agents on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with known cardiovascular disease. Studies will be retrieved from Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as clinical trial registry websites, Europe PMC and conference abstract handsearching. No publication date or language restrictions will be imposed. Eligible interventions must have some component of anti-inflammatory agent. These include (but are not limited to): non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), colchicine, prednisone, methotrexate, canakinumab, pexelizumab, anakinra, succinobucol, losmapimod, inclacumab, atreleuton, LP-PLA2 (darapladib) and sPLA2 (varespladib). The primary outcomes will include major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and each individual component of MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death). Key secondary outcomes will include unstable angina, heart failure, all-cause mortality, cardiac arrest and revascularisation. Screening, inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by two reviewers. Network meta-analysis based on the random effects model will be conducted to compare treatment effects both directly and indirectly. The quality of the evidence will be assessed with appropriate tools including the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation profiler or Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this systematic review. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42022303289.

Project description:To evaluate the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on cancer mortality in the general population and on prognosis in cancer patients, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) and individual patient data (IPD) was conducted. Overall, 14 RCTs with a total of 104,727 participants (2015 cancer deaths) were identified and 7 RCTs, including 90 % of all study participants (n = 94,068), could be included in the IPD meta-analyses. The main meta-analysis of the 14 RCTs yielded a statistically non-significant reduction in cancer mortality by 6 % (risk ratio (RR) [95%-confidence interval (95%CI)]: 0.94 [0.86-1.02]). Subgroup analyses revealed a 12 % lower cancer mortality in the vitamin D3 group compared with the placebo group in 10 trials with a daily dosing regimen (RR [95%CI]: 0.88 [0.78-0.98]), whereas no mortality reduction was seen in 4 trials using a bolus regimen (RR [95%CI]: 1.07 [0.91-1.24]; p-value for interaction: 0.042). The IPD meta-analysis (RR [95%CI]: 0.93 [0.84; 1.02]) confirmed the finding of all trials. The IPD were used to test effect modification by age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration, adherence and cancer-related factors but no statistically significant findings were obtained in meta-analyses of all trials. When restricted to trials with daily dosing in a post-hoc analysis, adults aged ≥ 70 years (RR [95%CI]: 0.83 [0.77; 0.98]) and subjects with vitamin D3 therapy initiation before cancer diagnosis (RR [95%CI]: 0.87 [0.69; 0.99]) appeared to benefit most from daily vitamin D3 supplementation. Measurements of baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and inclusion of other than non-Hispanic White adults were too sparse in the trials to draw conclusions. Results for all-cause and cancer-specific survival of participants with cancer were comparable to those obtained in the general population for cancer mortality. In conclusion, vitamin D3 did not reduce cancer mortality in the main meta-analysis of all RCTs because the observed risk reduction by 6 % was not statistically significant. However, a subgroup analysis revealed that vitamin D3 administered daily, in contrast to bolus supplementation, reduced cancer mortality by 12 %.