Dataset Information

Calcium Supplements and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT: Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs) have reported controversial findings regarding the associations between calcium supplements on the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between them. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the bibliographies of relevant articles for double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs in November, 2020. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of cardiovascular disease were calculated using a random effects model. The main outcomes were CVD, coronary heart disease (CHD), and cerebrovascular disease. A total of 13 double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs (n = 28,935 participants in an intervention group and 14,243 in a control group)) were included in the final analysis. Calcium supplements significantly increased the risk of CVD (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06-1.25], I2 = 0.0%, n = 14) and CHD (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.28], I2 = 0.0%, n = 9) in double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs, specifically in healthy postmenopausal women. In the subgroup meta-analysis, dietary calcium intake of 700-1000 mg per day or supplementary calcium intake of 1000 mg per day significantly increased the risk of CVD and CHD. The current meta-analysis found that calcium supplements increased a risk of CVD by about 15% in healthy postmenopausal women.

SUBMITTER: Myung SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7910980 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Calcium Supplements and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

Myung Seung-Kwon SK Kim Hong-Bae HB Lee Yong-Jae YJ Choi Yoon-Jung YJ Oh Seung-Won SW

Nutrients 20210126 2

<h4>Background</h4>Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs) have reported controversial findings regarding the associations between calcium supplements on the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between them.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the bibliographies of relevant articles for double-blind, placebo- ...[more]

PMID: 33530332

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVitamin D supplements may only be beneficial for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures when administered with calcium and in individuals with low blood levels of 25(OH)D, but possible hazards of calcium supplements on CVD cannot be excluded.ObjectivesWe conducted a meta-analysis of all placebo-controlled randomized trials assessing the effects of calcium supplements alone or with vitamin D on CHD, stroke, and all-cause mortality.MethodsA meta-analysis of 11 trials included 7 comparisons of calcium alone compared with control (n = 8634) and 6 comparisons of calcium plus vitamin D compared with control (n = 46,804). Aggregated study-level data were obtained from individual trials and combined using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. The main outcomes included MI, CHD death, any CHD, stroke, and all-cause mortality.ResultsAmong trials of calcium alone (mean daily dose 1 g), calcium was not significantly associated with any excess risk of MI (RR, 1.15; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.51; n = 219 events), CHD death (RR, 1.24; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.73; n = 142), any CHD (RR, 1.01; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.37; n = 177), or stroke (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.90, 1.46, n = 275). Among 6 trials of combined treatment, supplementation with calcium plus vitamin D was not significantly associated with any excess risk of MI (RR, 1.09; 95% CI: 0.95, 1.25; n = 854), CHD death (RR, 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.27; n = 391), any CHD (RR, 1.05; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.19; n = 1061), or stroke (RR, 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.17; n = 885). Likewise, calcium alone, or with vitamin D had no significant associations with all-cause mortality.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrated that calcium supplements were not associated with any significant hazard for CHD, stroke, or all-cause mortality and excluded excess risks above 0.3%-0.5% per year for CHD or stroke. Further trials of calcium and vitamin D are required in individuals with low blood levels of 25(OH)D for the prevention of fracture and other disease outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of vitamin and antioxidant supplements in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sources and study selectionPubMed, 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.ResultsOut 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.ConclusionThere is no evidence to support the use of vitamin and antioxidant supplements for prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

Project description:ObjectiveGut flora imbalance characterizes patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although biotic supplementation has been proposed to lessen inflammation and oxidative stress and, thus, reduce the risk of progressive kidney damage and cardiovascular disease, the effects remain controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the therapeutic benefits of biotics in CKD.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials that evaluated any biotic (prebiotic, probiotic, synbiotics) supplements in patients with CKD (CKD, stage 3-4 to end-stage renal disease). Primary endpoints included changes in renal function, markers of inflammation, and oxidative stress. Secondary endpoints included changes in levels of uremic toxins and variations in lipid metabolism.ResultsTwenty-three eligible studies included 842 participants. In a pooled-analysis, biotics did not change estimated glomerular filtration rate (mean difference [MD] = 0.08, P = .92) or serum albumin (MD = -0.01, P = .86), although prebiotics reduced serum creatinine (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.23, P = .009) and blood urea nitrogen (MD = -6.05, P < .00001). Biotics improved total antioxidative capacity (SMD = 0.37, P = .007) and malondialdehyde (SMD = -0.96, P = .006) and reduced the inflammatory marker interleukin-6 (SMD = -0.30, P = .01) although not C-reactive protein (SMD = -0.22, P = .20). Biotic intervention reduced some uremic toxins, including p-cresol sulfate (SMD = -2.18, P < .0001) and indoxyl sulfate (MD = -5.14, P = .0009), which decreased in dialysis-dependent patients. Another toxin, indole-3-acetic acid (MD = -0.22, P = .63), did not change. Lipids were unaffected by biotic intervention (total cholesterol: SMD = -0.01, P = .89; high-density lipoprotein: SMD = -0.08, P = .76; low-density lipoprotein: MD = 3.54, P = .28; triglyceride: MD = -2.26, P = .58).ConclusionThe results highlight the favorable influence of biotics on circulating markers of creatinine, oxidant stress (malondialdehyde, total antioxidative capacity), inflammation (interleukin-6), and uremic toxins (p-cresol sulfate) in patients with CKD. Biotics did not affect estimated glomerular filtration rate, albumin, indole-3-acetic acid, or lipids in either predialysis or dialysis patients.

Project description:BackgroundOverweight and obesity are considered as one of the major risk factors for cardiovascular diseases (CVD). At present, many studies have proved that multiple nutritional supplements play an active role in metabolic diseases. However, the comparative efficacy of different nutritional supplements in improving indicators of cardiometabolic risk in obese and overweight patients is uncertain.MethodsCochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for the period from January 1990 to March 2022. A random-effect model was built in the Bayesian network meta-analysis. The surface under the cumulative ranking analysis (SUCRA) and clustering rank analysis was performed for ranking the effects.ResultsThe study included 65 RCTs with 4,241 patients. In terms of glucose control, probiotic was more conductive to improve FBG (MD: -0.90; 95%CrI: -1.41 to -0.38), FINS (MD: -2.05; 95%CrI: -4.27 to -0.02), HOMA-IR (MD: -2.59; 95%CI -3.42 to -1.76). Probiotic (MD: -11.15, 95%CrI -22.16 to -1.26), omega-3 (MD: -9.45; 95%CrI: -20.69 to -0.93), VD (MD: -17.86; 95%CrI: -35.53 to -0.27), and probiotic +omega-3 (MD: 5.24; 95%CrI: 0.78 to 9.63) were beneficial to the improvement of TGs, TC and HDL-C, respectively. The SUCRA revealed that probiotic might be the best intervention to reduce FBG, FINS, HOMA-IR; Simultaneously, α-lipoic acid, VD, and probiotic + omega-3 might be the best intervention to improve TGs, TC, and HDL-C, respectively. Cluster-rank results revealed probiotic had the best comprehensive improvement effect on glucose metabolism, and probiotic + omega-3 may have a better comprehensive improvement effect on lipid metabolism (cluster-rank value for FBG and FINS: 3290.50 and for TGs and HDL-C: 2117.61).ConclusionNutritional supplementation is effective on CVD risk factors in overweight and obese patients. Probiotic supplementation might be the best intervention for blood glucose control; VD, probiotic + omega-3 have a better impact on improving lipid metabolism. Further studies are required to verify the current findings.

Dataset Information

Calcium Supplements and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

Publications

Calcium Supplements and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets