DLM: Vitamin E, C, B-carotene Supplements and All-Cause Mortality (2007-2010)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

To assess the effect of vitamin E and B carotene on long-term cardiovascular mortality and morbidity.

Inclusion Criteria:

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.

Exclusion Criteria:
Trials without all-cause morality data.
Description of Study Protocol:

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
Data Collection Summary:

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.

Description of Actual Data Sample:

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

Summary of Results:

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

Author Conclusion:

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.

Funding Source:
Not-for-profit
0
Foundation associated with industry:
Reviewer Comments:

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