DLM: Vitamin E, C, B-carotene Supplements and All-Cause Mortality (2007-2010)
To assess the effect of vitamin E and B carotene on long-term cardiovascular mortality and morbidity.
Randomized control trials of antioxidant vitamins in primary and secondary prevention.
Only studies that had 1000 or more patients.
Studies done on populations from developed countries without overt evidence of vitamin deficiencies.
Studies were identified through MEDLINE searches and searches by hand of the bibliographies of primary studies identified in the initial search. Additional searches were done of known trial acronyms cited in review articles.
Studies were included based on quality of the study’s methods, trial size, randomization scheme, and use of an intention-to-treat analysis.
Outcomes of interest prospectively identified were:
- All-cause mortality
- Cardiovascular death
- All-causeCVA
- Non-fatal MI
Findings were compared in an intention-to-treat analysis.
The frequency of each cardiovascular endpoint for patients receiving vitamin treatment and those not receiving treatment was assessed from the primary pub source.
Missing data from the original pub was obtained from the author of the pub.
Within each study a X2 test was used to assess the effect of vitamin treatment, and odds ratios and 95% CI were calculated.
P,0.05 was significant.
A Breslow-Day test was used to test homogeneity of the odds ratio across trials with p,0.05 being sig.
Cochran-Mantel Haenszel tests were used to examine the effect of vitamin therapy on each endpoint across the B carotene studies and vitamin E studies separately, and pooled odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated.
12 studies were identified and included in this MA and were:
- ATBC
- PHS
- CARET
- WHS
- HPS
- CHAOS
- SCP
- GISSI
- AREDS
- HOPE
- NSCP
- PPP
7 RTCs of vit E treatment were analyzed. The dose range was 50-800 IU.
n=81,788
8 RTCs of B carotene as the treatment were analyzed. The dose range was 15-50 mg.
n=138,113
Follow-up ranged from 1.4 to 12 years.
See Table 1 for sample size and characteristics of participants in each trial.
Table 1. Sample size and characteristics of participants in each of the 12 trials analyzed .
Trial |
Characteristics |
B carotene |
Control |
ATBC |
100% male smokes ages 50-69 n=29,133 |
14,560 |
14,573 |
CARET |
Former/active smokers or asbestos exposure Ages 45-69 66% male n=18,314 |
9420 |
8894 |
HPS |
Ages 40-80 Known vascular dz or risk for. 75% male n=20,536
|
10,269 |
10,267 |
SCP |
Age <85 but most <65 Previous non-melanoma skin cancer 69% male n=1805 |
913 |
892 |
AREDS |
Ages 55-80 At risk of cataracts or vision loss 44% male n=4757 |
2370 |
2387 |
NSCP |
Ages 20-69 Risk for basal cell or squamous cell ca. 44% male n=1621 |
820 |
801 |
PHS |
Ages 40-84 No hx ca. or vascular dz 100% male physicians n=22071 |
11,036 |
1035 |
WHS |
Age >45 No hx cancer or vascular dz 100% female health professionals n=39,876 |
19,939 |
19,937 |
|
|
Vitamin E |
Control |
ATBC |
X age = 57 Male smokers without known lung cancer n=29,133 |
14,564 |
14,569 |
CHAOS |
Median age 62 CAD proven w/angiography 84% male n=2002 |
1035 |
967 |
GISSI |
Survivors of MI <3mos 85% male n=11,324 |
5660 |
5664 |
HOPE |
X age 66 Known CV dz or diabetes 73% male n=9541 |
4761 |
4780 |
HPS |
Ages 40-80 Known or risk for vascular dz 75% male n=20,536 |
10,269 |
10,267 |
AREDS |
Ages 55-80 At risk of cataracts or vision loss 44% male n=4757 |
2370 |
2387 |
PPP |
X age 64.4 Primary prevention in patients w/at least 1 risk factor 57% male n=4495 |
2231 |
2264 |
Vit E did not provide benefit in mortality or significantly decrease risk of cardiovascular death or CVA compared to controls.
B carotene led to a significant increase in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death.
No sig heterogeneity was noted for any analysis.
See Table 2 for summary of statistics.
Table 2. Results Summary.
Endpoint |
Odds ratio (95% CI) Pooled |
Absolute event rates Treatment Control |
P value Breslow- Day |
All-cause mortality rate, B carotene |
1.07 (1.02-1.11) n=138,113 |
7.4% 7.0% |
0.003 0.32 |
Cardiovascular death rate, B carotene |
1.1 (1.03-1.17) n=131,551 |
3.4% 3.1% |
0.003 0.12 |
All-cause CVA, B carotene |
1.0 (0.91-1.09) n=82,483 |
2.3% 2.3% |
0.92 0.18 |
All-cause mortality rate, vitamin E |
1.02 (0.98-1.06) n=81,788 |
11.3% 11.1% |
0.42 0.63 |
Cardiovascular death rate, vitamin E |
1.0 (0.94-1.06) n=77,031 |
6.0% 6.0% |
0.94 0.73 |
All-cause CVA, vitamin E |
1.02 (0.92-1.12) n=45,896 |
3.6% 3.5% |
0.70 0.31 |
Cardiovascular death or non-fatal MI, vitamin E |
1.0 (0.94-1.07) n=38,357(error in text which reports 38,367) |
9.8% 9.8% |
0.93 0.053 |
Given the results of this meta analysis the use of vitamin supplements containing B carotene and vitamin A should be actively discouraged as this family of agents is associated with a small but significant excess of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death.
Author’s recommend that clinical trials of B carotene should be discontinued because of its risks.
When used as a secondary prevention vitamin E did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular endpoints.
Given the results of this meta analysis and the lack of mechanistic data supporting efficacy of vitamin E as a potent antioxidant in vivo, the authors do not support the continued use of vitamin E treatment or in future primary or secondary prevention trials in patients with high risk of CAD.
Not-for-profit |
|
Authors did excellent job discussing the limitations and reasons for their findings.
Did an excellent job pointing out potential harms and benefits of vit E and B carotene use.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
|
|||
Relevance Questions | |||
1. | Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? | Yes | |
2. | Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? | Yes | |
3. | Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? | Yes | |
4. | Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? | Yes | |
Validity Questions | |||
1. | Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? | Yes | |
2. | Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? | Yes | |
3. | Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? | Yes | |
4. | Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? | Yes | |
5. | Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? | Yes | |
6. | Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? | Yes | |
7. | Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? | Yes | |
8. | Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? | Yes | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? | Yes | |
10. | Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |