1
|
Worldwide comparative efficacy of nutraceuticals on lipid profile. an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2022. [DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.2380] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
In case of patients without indications to statin therapy, those being close to the target and especially with statin intolerance, nutraceuticals might be an additional option of hypercholesterolemia therapy. Despite a large number of nutraceuticals, little is known on their comparative efficacy due to the paucity of head-to-head comparisons. We aimed to assess the lipid-lowering effect of various nutraceuticals by means of network meta-analysis.
Methods
PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were carefully searched to identify eligible studies to the meta-analysis. We included parallel or crossover randomized clinical trials (RCT), comparing head-to-head or to placebo/no intervention, the following nutraceuticals: a) artichoke, b) berberine, c) bergamot, d) garlic, e) green tea extract, f) plant sterols and stanols, g) policosanols, h) red yeast rice (RYR), i) silymarin, j) spirulina. We did not include soy protein, fiber, and lupin trials, as unlike other nutraceuticals they are in fact dietary interventions. Due to strikingly inconsistent results of policosanols RCTs carried out in Cuba and other countries, we excluded Cuban trials from main analysis.
Results
From the initially identified 4151 articles we finally included 131 studies. As some studies reported clinically different groups separately, they were split and finally we included 136 records, 134 with data on total cholesterol (TC), 125 with data on low-density cholesterol (LDL-C), 127 that provided information on high-density cholesterol (HDL-c) and 129 that included data regarding triglycerides (TG). Pooled studies covered data for 6755 patients randomized to nutraceutical arms and 6370 randomized to receive placebo/no intervention. For reducing TC bergamot, was identified as the most effective approach (P-score = 1.0) followed by RYR (0.90) and berberine (0.76). For increasing HDL-C, bergamot (0.98), berberine (0.85), and RYR (0.77) were the most effective. While evaluating LDL-C reduction, bergamot (1.00) and RYR (0.90) showed the highest reduction efficacy. Reducing effect of investigated nutraceuticals on TG levels was the highest for bergamot (1.00) and RYR (0.78). Majority of reports regarding Cuban policosanol trials implicated very high effectiveness of those nutraceuticals, which was in contrast to trials conducted in other countries
Conclusions
Bergamot, berberine, and RYR seemed to be most effective nutraceuticals in terms of lipid-lowering efficacy. Alleged high effectiveness of policosanols was not confirmed in our analysis. This analysis might support the physicians and patients' decisions to use only those nutraceuticals of confirmed efficacy.
Funding Acknowledgement
Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Medical University of Silesia, Katowice
Collapse
|
2
|
LDL levels and long-term all-cause mortality in patients from nationwide LIPIDOGRAM 2004–2015 cohort studies. Eur Heart J 2022. [DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.2677] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Data from multiple randomized clinical trials show that lowering LDL cholesterol with statins is associated with significant reduction of outcomes both in primary and secondary prevention. Despite this some epidemiological studies reported increased risk with lowest LDL levels. The reason for this apparent discrepancy is probably due to unbalanced confounding in epidemiological studies.
Purpose
To assess long term survival in propensity matched cohort from the LIPIDOGRAM study in patients on statin therapy.
Methods
Lipidogram studies were carried out in Poland in 2004, 2006 and 2015 in the population representative for patients in primary care setting. The median follow up was 5570 days. Patients were recruited in all 16 administrative regions in Poland and physicians (n>1100) were proportionally distributed to the number of inhabitants in a given administrative region. Each patient was asked to fill the questionnaire on chronic diseases, treatment and lifestyle. Questionnaire was supervised by physician. Patients who were taking statins at the time of enrollment were matched to patients who were not on statin therapy. Groups were matched with regard to age, sex, body mass index, LDL cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, previous myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease, previous ischemic stroke, and atrial fibrillation. Nearest neighbor matching method was employed.
Results
To 13676 patients (28.9% of the LIPIDOGRAM 2004–2015 cohort) that took statin at the time of enrollment and 13676 patients not on statin treatment were matched. There were no significant differences between two groups with regard to all variables used in matching procedure including LDL cholesterol level. After 15 years of follow up There were 2585 deaths (18.9%) in patients who were treated with statin at the time of enrollment as compared to 2824 (20.6%) in patients with no treatment for dyslipidemia (absolute risk reduction (ARR) of −1.7%, p=0.003) Hazard ratio for mortality in patients who were not treated with statin at the enrollment in this propensity matched cohort was 1.11 (95% CI; 1.05–1.17, p=0.0002).
Conclusions
Despite similar LDL levels patients treated with statin at the time of enrollment had lower mortality risk as compared to patients not taking statins in long-term follow-up. Lower LDL levels that are not due to statin therapy might imply other underlying conditions that influence prognosis. Therefore, data from epidemiological studies that contradict results of balanced randomized trials due to intrinsic limitations should be approached with skepticism.
Funding Acknowledgement
Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): The present study was funded by an unrestricted educational grant from Valeant. As a supporter of the study, Valeant played no role in the study design, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The present study was also supported by Silesian Analytical Laboratories (SLA, Katowice, Poland).
Collapse
|