Seung-Kwon Myung1,2,3, Hong-Bae Kim4, Yong-Jae Lee5, Yoon-Jung Choi6, Seung-Won Oh7. 1. Department of Cancer Biomedical Science, National Cancer Center Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, Goyang 10408, Korea. 2. Cancer Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Research Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang 10408, Korea. 3. Department of Family Medicine and Center for Cancer Prevention and Detection, Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang 10408, Korea. 4. Department of Family Medicine, MyongJi Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Goyang 10475, Korea. 5. Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Korea. 6. Department of Preventive Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Korea. 7. Department of Family Medicine, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul 06236, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis found that calcium supplements increased a risk of CVD by about 15% in healthy postmenopausal women.
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis found that calcium supplements increased a risk of CVD by about 15% in healthy postmenopausal women.
Authors: Sarah M Bristow; Greg D Gamble; Angela Stewart; Lauren Horne; Meaghan E House; Opetaia Aati; Borislav Mihov; Anne M Horne; Ian R Reid Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Joan M Lappe; Dianne Travers-Gustafson; K Michael Davies; Robert R Recker; Robert P Heaney Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Ian R Reid; Ruth Ames; Barbara Mason; Helen E Reid; Catherine J Bacon; Mark J Bolland; Gregory D Gamble; Andrew Grey; Anne Horne Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-11-10
Authors: Alison Avenell; Graeme S MacLennan; David J Jenkinson; Gladys C McPherson; Alison M McDonald; Puspa R Pant; Adrian M Grant; Marion K Campbell; Frazer H Anderson; Cyrus Cooper; Roger M Francis; William J Gillespie; C Michael Robinson; David J Torgerson; W Angus Wallace Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-11-23 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: J Compston; A Cooper; C Cooper; N Gittoes; C Gregson; N Harvey; S Hope; J A Kanis; E V McCloskey; K E S Poole; D M Reid; P Selby; F Thompson; A Thurston; N Vine Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Simone J M Stoots; Guido M Kamphuis; Rob Geraghty; Liffert Vogt; Michaël M E L Henderickx; B M Zeeshan Hameed; Sufyan Ibrahim; Amelia Pietropaolo; Enakshee Jamnadass; Sahar M Aljumaiah; Saeed B Hamri; Eugenio Ventimiglia; Olivier Traxer; Vineet Gauhar; Etienne X Keller; Vincent De Coninck; Otas Durutovic; Nariman K Gadzhiev; Laurian B Dragos; Tarik Emre Sener; Nick Rukin; Michele Talso; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Esteban Emiliani; Ewa Bres-Niewada; Kymora B Scotland; Naeem Bhojani; Athanasios Vagionis; Angela Piccirilli; Bhaskar K Somani Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-06-27 Impact factor: 4.241