BACKGROUND: The results of cohort studies relating sodium (Na) intake to blood pressure-related cardiovascular disease (CVD) are inconsistent. To understand whether methodological issues account for the inconsistency, we reviewed the quality of these studies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed cohort studies that examined the association between Na and CVD. We then identified methodological issues with greatest potential to alter the direction of association (reverse causality, systematic error in Na assessment), some potential to alter the direction of association (residual confounding, inadequate follow-up), and the potential to yield false null results (random error in Na assessment, insufficient power). We included 26 studies with 31 independent analyses. Of these, 13 found direct associations between Na and CVD, 8 found inverse associations, 2 found J-shaped associations, and 8 found null associations only. On average there were 3 to 4 methodological issues per study. Issues with greater potential to alter the direction of association were present in all but 1 of the 26 studies (systematic error, 22; reverse causality, 16). Issues with lesser potential to alter the direction of association were present in 18 studies, whereas those with potential to yield false null results were present in 23. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological issues may account for the inconsistent findings in currently available observational studies relating Na to CVD. Until well-designed cohort studies in the general population are available, it remains appropriate to base Na guidelines on the robust body of evidence linking Na with elevated blood pressure and the few existing general population trials of the effects of Na reduction on CVD.
BACKGROUND: The results of cohort studies relating sodium (Na) intake to blood pressure-related cardiovascular disease (CVD) are inconsistent. To understand whether methodological issues account for the inconsistency, we reviewed the quality of these studies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed cohort studies that examined the association between Na and CVD. We then identified methodological issues with greatest potential to alter the direction of association (reverse causality, systematic error in Na assessment), some potential to alter the direction of association (residual confounding, inadequate follow-up), and the potential to yield false null results (random error in Na assessment, insufficient power). We included 26 studies with 31 independent analyses. Of these, 13 found direct associations between Na and CVD, 8 found inverse associations, 2 found J-shaped associations, and 8 found null associations only. On average there were 3 to 4 methodological issues per study. Issues with greater potential to alter the direction of association were present in all but 1 of the 26 studies (systematic error, 22; reverse causality, 16). Issues with lesser potential to alter the direction of association were present in 18 studies, whereas those with potential to yield false null results were present in 23. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological issues may account for the inconsistent findings in currently available observational studies relating Na to CVD. Until well-designed cohort studies in the general population are available, it remains appropriate to base Na guidelines on the robust body of evidence linking Na with elevated blood pressure and the few existing general population trials of the effects of Na reduction on CVD.
Authors: Norm R C Campbell; Daniel T Lackland; Liu Lisheng; Xin-Hua Zhang; Peter M Nilsson; Mark L Niebylski Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2015-06
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Michael J Blaha; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; James Floyd; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Rachel H Mackey; Kunihiro Matsushita; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Comilla Sasson; Amytis Towfighi; Connie W Tsao; Melanie B Turner; Salim S Virani; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Bernhard Haring; Wenyu Wang; Elisa T Lee; Sunny Jhamnani; Barbara V Howard; Richard B Devereux Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: William B Farquhar; David G Edwards; Claudine T Jurkovitz; William S Weintraub Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Robert M Carey; David A Calhoun; George L Bakris; Robert D Brook; Stacie L Daugherty; Cheryl R Dennison-Himmelfarb; Brent M Egan; John M Flack; Samuel S Gidding; Eric Judd; Daniel T Lackland; Cheryl L Laffer; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Steven M Smith; Sandra J Taler; Stephen C Textor; Tanya N Turan; William B White Journal: Hypertension Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 10.190