Gabrielle Roy1, Anykim Boucher1, Patrick Couture1,2, Jean-Philippe Drouin-Chartier1,3. 1. Centre Nutrition, Santé et Société (NUTRISS), Institut Sur la Nutrition et les Aliments Fonctionnels (INAF), Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada. 2. Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 4G2, Canada. 3. Faculté de Pharmacie, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conclusive data on the effectiveness of dietary interventions in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) management are unavailable. Whether this is due to a true lack of effects or biases in intervention designs remains unsettled. We systematically assessed the impact on LDL-C of published dietary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted among individuals with HeFH in relation to their design and risk of bias. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase in November 2020 to identify RCTs that assessed the impact of: (1) food-based interventions; (2) dietary counseling interventions; or (3) dietary supplements on LDL-C in individuals with HeFH. We evaluated the risk of bias of each study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 method. RESULTS: A total of 19 RCTs comprising 837 individuals with HeFH were included. Of those, five were food-based interventions, three were dietary counseling interventions and 12 were dietary supplement-based interventions (omega-3, n = 3; phytosterols, n = 7; guar gum, n = 1; policosanol, n = 1). One study qualified both as a food-based intervention and as a dietary supplement intervention due to its factorial design. A significant reduction in LDL-C levels was reported in 10 RCTs, including eight dietary supplement interventions (phytosterols, n = 6, omega-3, n = 1; guar gum, n = 1), one food-based intervention and one dietary counseling intervention. A total of 13 studies were judged to have some methodological biases in a way that substantially lowers confidence in the results. Studies at low risk of biases were more likely to report significant reductions in LDL-C concentrations, compared with studies at risk of bias (chi-square statistic: 5.49; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: This systemic review shows that the apparent lack of effectiveness of diet manipulation in modulating plasma levels of LDL-C among individuals with HeFH is likely due to biases in study designs, rather than a true lack of effects. The likelihood of reporting significant reductions in LDL-C was associated with the concurrent risk of bias.
BACKGROUND: Conclusive data on the effectiveness of dietary interventions in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) management are unavailable. Whether this is due to a true lack of effects or biases in intervention designs remains unsettled. We systematically assessed the impact on LDL-C of published dietary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted among individuals with HeFH in relation to their design and risk of bias. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase in November 2020 to identify RCTs that assessed the impact of: (1) food-based interventions; (2) dietary counseling interventions; or (3) dietary supplements on LDL-C in individuals with HeFH. We evaluated the risk of bias of each study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 method. RESULTS: A total of 19 RCTs comprising 837 individuals with HeFH were included. Of those, five were food-based interventions, three were dietary counseling interventions and 12 were dietary supplement-based interventions (omega-3, n = 3; phytosterols, n = 7; guar gum, n = 1; policosanol, n = 1). One study qualified both as a food-based intervention and as a dietary supplement intervention due to its factorial design. A significant reduction in LDL-C levels was reported in 10 RCTs, including eight dietary supplement interventions (phytosterols, n = 6, omega-3, n = 1; guar gum, n = 1), one food-based intervention and one dietary counseling intervention. A total of 13 studies were judged to have some methodological biases in a way that substantially lowers confidence in the results. Studies at low risk of biases were more likely to report significant reductions in LDL-C concentrations, compared with studies at risk of bias (chi-square statistic: 5.49; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: This systemic review shows that the apparent lack of effectiveness of diet manipulation in modulating plasma levels of LDL-C among individuals with HeFH is likely due to biases in study designs, rather than a true lack of effects. The likelihood of reporting significant reductions in LDL-C was associated with the concurrent risk of bias.
Authors: James R Hébert; Edward A Frongillo; Swann A Adams; Gabrielle M Turner-McGrievy; Thomas G Hurley; Donald R Miller; Ira S Ockene Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 8.701
Authors: P Barton Duell; Samuel S Gidding; Rolf L Andersen; Thomas Knickelbine; Lars Anderson; Eugenia Gianos; Peter Shrader; Iris Kindt; Emily C O'Brien; Dervilla McCann; Linda C Hemphill; Catherine D Ahmed; Seth S Martin; John A Larry; Zahid S Ahmad; Iftikhar J Kullo; James A Underberg; John Guyton; Paul Thompson; Katherine Wilemon; Matthew T Roe; Daniel J Rader; Marina Cuchel; MacRae F Linton; Michael D Shapiro; Patrick M Moriarty; Joshua W Knowles Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Pengwei Hu; Kanika I Dharmayat; Kausik K Ray; Antonio J Vallejo-Vaz; Christophe A T Stevens; Mansour T A Sharabiani; Rebecca S Jones; Gerald F Watts; Jacques Genest Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Annette M Galema-Boers; Mattie J Lenzen; Sophie R Engelkes; Eric J Sijbrands; Jeanine E Roeters van Lennep Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 4.766
Authors: Ethan M Balk; Alice H Lichtenstein; Mei Chung; Bruce Kupelnick; Priscilla Chew; Joseph Lau Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2006-03-10 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Jorie Versmissen; Daniëlla M Oosterveer; Mojgan Yazdanpanah; Joep C Defesche; Dick C G Basart; Anho H Liem; Jan Heeringa; Jacqueline C Witteman; Peter J Lansberg; John J P Kastelein; Eric J G Sijbrands Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-11-11