Literature DB >> 35014026

Calcium supplementation for prevention of primary hypertension.

Gabriela Cormick1, Agustín Ciapponi2, María Luisa Cafferata1, María Sol Cormick3, José M Belizán1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major public health problem that increases the risk of cardiovascular and kidney diseases. Several studies have shown an inverse association between calcium intake and blood pressure, as small reductions in blood pressure have been shown to produce rapid reductions in vascular disease risk even in individuals with normal blood pressure ranges. This is the first update of the review to evaluate the effect of calcium supplementation in normotensive individuals as a preventive health measure.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of calcium supplementation versus placebo or control for reducing blood pressure in normotensive people and for the prevention of primary hypertension. SEARCH
METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected trials that randomised normotensive people to dietary calcium interventions such as supplementation or food fortification versus placebo or control. We excluded quasi-random designs. The primary outcomes were hypertension (defined as blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg) and blood pressure measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risks of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN
RESULTS: The 2020 updated search identified four new trials. We included a total of 20 trials with 3512 participants, however we only included 18 for the meta-analysis with 3140 participants. None of the studies reported hypertension as a dichotomous outcome. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure was: mean difference (MD) -1.37 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08, -0.66; 3140 participants; 18 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence; and MD -1.45, 95% CI -2.23, -0.67; 3039 participants; 17 studies; I2 = 45%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for those younger than 35 years was: MD -1.86, 95% CI -3.45, -0.27; 452 participants; eight studies; I2 = 19%, moderate-certainty evidence; MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.22, -0.79; 351 participants; seven studies ; I2 = 54%, moderate-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for those 35 years or older was: MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.83, -0.10; 2688 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence; MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.13, -0.06; 2688 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for women was: MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.53, 0.03; 1915 participants; eight studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence; MD -1.04, 95% CI -1.86, -0.22; 1915 participants; eight studies; I2 = 4%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for men was MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.71, -0.59; 507 participants; five studies; I2 = 8%, moderate-certainty evidence; MD -1.99, 95% CI -3.25, -0.74; 507 participants; five studies; I2 = 41%, moderate-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect was consistent in both genders regardless of baseline calcium intake. The effect on systolic blood pressure was: MD -0.02, 95% CI -2.23, 2.20; 302 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence with doses less than 1000 mg; MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.91, -0.19; 2488 participants; 9 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence with doses 1000 to 1500 mg; and MD -2.79, 95% CI -4.71, 0.86; 350 participants; 7 studies; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence with doses more than 1500 mg. The effect on diastolic blood pressure was: MD -0.41, 95% CI -2.07, 1.25; 201 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0, moderate-certainty evidence; MD -2.03, 95% CI -3.44, -0.62 ; 1017 participants; 8 studies; and MD -1.35, 95% CI -2.75, -0.05; 1821 participants; 8 studies; I2 = 51%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. None of the studies reported adverse events. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: An increase in calcium intake slightly reduces both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in normotensive people, particularly in young people, suggesting a role in the prevention of hypertension. The effect across multiple prespecified subgroups and a possible dose response effect reinforce this conclusion. Even small reductions in blood pressure could have important health implications for reducing vascular disease. A 2 mmHg lower systolic blood pressure is predicted to produce about 10% lower stroke mortality and about 7% lower mortality from ischaemic heart disease. There is a great need for adequately-powered clinical trials randomising young people. Subgroup analysis should involve basal calcium intake, age, sex, basal blood pressure, and body mass index. We also require assessment of side effects, optimal doses and the best strategy to improve calcium intake.
Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35014026      PMCID: PMC8748265          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010037.pub4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  80 in total

Review 1.  Essential hypertension. Part I: definition and etiology.

Authors:  O A Carretero; S Oparil
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2000-01-25       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Blood pressure responses to high-calcium skim milk and potassium-enriched high-calcium skim milk.

Authors:  J Hilary Green; J K Richards; R L Bunning
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.844

3.  Does baseline serum total calcium level influence the blood pressure response to calcium supplementation? A double-blind study.

Authors:  R M Lyle
Journal:  Neth J Med       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 1.422

4.  Metabolic differences between subjects whose blood pressure did or did not respond to oral calcium supplementation.

Authors:  R M Lyle; C L Melby; G C Hyner
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 7.045

5.  No significant effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on blood pressure and calcium metabolism in elderly Chinese.

Authors:  W H Pan; C Y Wang; L A Li; L S Kao; S H Yeh
Journal:  Chin J Physiol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 1.764

Review 6.  Worldwide prevalence of hypertension: a systematic review.

Authors:  Patricia M Kearney; Megan Whelton; Kristi Reynolds; Paul K Whelton; Jiang He
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 4.844

7.  Short-term augmented calcium intake has no effect on sodium homeostasis.

Authors:  F C Luft; G R Aronoff; R S Sloan; N S Fineberg; M H Weinberger
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 6.875

8.  The mediating role of the parathyroid gland in the effect of low calcium intake on blood pressure in the rat.

Authors:  J M Belizán; J Villar; S Self; O Pineda; I González; E Sainz
Journal:  Arch Latinoam Nutr       Date:  1984-12

9.  The influence of calcium supplement on body composition, weight loss and insulin resistance in obese adults receiving low calorie diet.

Authors:  Maryam Shalileh; Farzad Shidfar; Hamid Haghani; Shahriar Eghtesadi; Iraj Heydari
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.852

10.  Blood pressure and incidence of twelve cardiovascular diseases: lifetime risks, healthy life-years lost, and age-specific associations in 1·25 million people.

Authors:  Eleni Rapsomaniki; Adam Timmis; Julie George; Mar Pujades-Rodriguez; Anoop D Shah; Spiros Denaxas; Ian R White; Mark J Caulfield; John E Deanfield; Liam Smeeth; Bryan Williams; Aroon Hingorani; Harry Hemingway
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-05-31       Impact factor: 79.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.