-
The Lancet. Psychiatry Nov 2020Many potential environmental risk factors, environmental protective factors, and peripheral biomarkers for ADHD have been investigated, but the consistency and magnitude... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many potential environmental risk factors, environmental protective factors, and peripheral biomarkers for ADHD have been investigated, but the consistency and magnitude of their effects are unclear. We aimed to systematically appraise the published evidence of association between potential risk factors, protective factors, or peripheral biomarkers, and ADHD.
METHODS
In this umbrella review of meta-analyses, we searched PubMed including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from database inception to Oct 31, 2019, and screened the references of relevant articles. We included systematic reviews that provided meta-analyses of observational studies that examined associations of potential environmental risk factors, environmental protective factors, or peripheral biomarkers with diagnosis of ADHD. We included meta-analyses that used categorical ADHD diagnosis criteria according to DSM, hyperkinetic disorder according to ICD, or criteria that were less rigorous than DSM or ICD, such as self-report. We excluded articles that did not examine environmental risk factors, environmental protective factors, or peripheral biomarkers of ADHD; articles that did not include a meta-analysis; and articles that did not present enough data for re-analysis. We excluded non-human studies, primary studies, genetic studies, and conference abstracts. We calculated summary effect estimates (odds ratio [OR], relative risk [RR], weighted mean difference [WMD], Cohen's d, and Hedges' g), 95% CI, heterogeneity I statistic, 95% prediction interval, small study effects, and excess significance biases. We did analyses under credibility ceilings, and assessed the quality of the meta-analyses with AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2). This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019145032.
FINDINGS
We identified 1839 articles, of which 35 were eligible for inclusion. These 35 articles yielded 63 meta-analyses encompassing 40 environmental risk factors and environmental protective factors (median cases 16 850, median population 91 954) and 23 peripheral biomarkers (median cases 175, median controls 187). Evidence of association was convincing (class I) for maternal pre-pregnancy obesity (OR 1·63, 95% CI 1·49 to 1·77), childhood eczema (1·31, 1·20 to 1·44), hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (1·29, 1·22 to 1·36), pre-eclampsia (1·28, 1·21 to 1·35), and maternal acetaminophen exposure during pregnancy (RR 1·25, 95% CI 1·17 to 1·34). Evidence of association was highly suggestive (class II) for maternal smoking during pregnancy (OR 1·6, 95% CI 1·45 to 1·76), childhood asthma (1·51, 1·4 to 1·63), maternal pre-pregnancy overweight (1·28, 1·21 to 1·35), and serum vitamin D (WMD -6·93, 95% CI -9·34 to -4·51).
INTERPRETATION
Maternal pre-pregnancy obesity and overweight; pre-eclampsia, hypertension, acetaminophen exposure, and smoking during pregnancy; and childhood atopic diseases were strongly associated with ADHD. Previous familial studies suggest that maternal pre-pregnancy obesity, overweight, and smoking during pregnancy are confounded by familial or genetic factors, and further high-quality studies are therefore required to establish causality.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Biomarkers; Female; Humans; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Protective Factors; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33069318
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30312-6 -
Frontiers in Nutrition 2021The modified Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet was a potentially effective treatment for pre-hypertensive and hypertensive patients. The evidence for...
The modified Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet was a potentially effective treatment for pre-hypertensive and hypertensive patients. The evidence for the effect of the modified DASH diet on blood pressure reduction was inconsistent. The study was designed to assess the effects of the modified DASH diet on blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive and pre-hypertensive adults. We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Data, SINOMED, Google Scholar, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to July 1st, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of the modified DASH diet on systolic and diastolic BP, cardiovascular risk factors (body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, fasting glucose, blood lipids), cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality were included. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata software. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool and quality of evidence with GRADE. A total of 10 RCTs were included. Compared with control diet, the modified DASH diet could reduce mean systolic (-3.26 mmHg; 95% confidence interval -5.58, -0.94 mmHg; = 0.006) and diastolic (-2.07 mmHg; 95% confidence interval -3.68, -0.46 mmHg; = 0.01) BP. Compared with the controlling diet, the modified DASH diet could reduce systolic BP to a greater extent in trials with a mean baseline BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg compared with <140/90 mmHg. Diastolic BP reduction was greater when the mean body mass index was ≥30 kg/m2 than <30 kg/m. Diastolic BP reduction was more marked in trials with a follow-up time of >8 weeks compared with ≤8 weeks. The modified DASH diet could affect mean waist circumference (difference: 1.57 cm; 95% confidence interval -2.98, -0.15) and triglyceride concentration (difference: 1.04 mol/L; 95% confidence interval -1.47, -0.60). The modified DASH diet can reduce BP, waist circumference, and triglyceride concentration in hypertension patients. A higher baseline BP is associated with more marked systolic and diastolic BP reduction. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020190860.
PubMed: 34557511
DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2021.725020 -
Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) Jun 2020Maternal vitamin D deficiency has been associated with an increased risk for preeclampsia. Despite this, the current evidence regarding the efficacy of vitamin D... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Maternal vitamin D deficiency has been associated with an increased risk for preeclampsia. Despite this, the current evidence regarding the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in preventing preeclampsia is controversial. To assess the impact of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of preeclampsia, we performed a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of the available randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
METHODS
The primary outcome was preeclampsia. Subgroup analyses were carried out considering the timing of the supplementation, type of intervention and the study design. Meta-regression analysis, including the amount of vitamin D and maternal age, were planned to explore heterogeneity (PROSPERO database registration number: CRD42019119207).
RESULTS
Data were pooled from 27 RCTs comprising 59 arms, which included overall 4777 participants, of whom 2487 were in the vitamin D-treated arm and 2290 in the control arm. Vitamin D administration in pregnancy was associated with a reduced risk of preeclampsia (odd ratio [OR] 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26, 0.52; I = 0%). If the vitamin D supplementation was started up to 20 weeks' gestation, the odds was a little lower (OR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.50, p < 0.001). The effect was largely independent of the supplementation cessation (until delivery or not), type of intervention (vitamin D alone or in association with calcium), and study design. Increasing dose of vitamin D was associated with reduced incidence of preeclampsia (slope of log OR: -1.1, 95% CI: -1.73, -0.46; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Results suggest that vitamin D supplementation may be useful in preventing preeclampsia. These data are especially useful for health-care providers who engage in the management of pregnant women at risk for preeclampsia. Our findings are a call for action to definitively address vitamin D supplementation as a possible intervention strategy in preventing preeclampsia in pregnancy.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Avitaminosis; Dietary Supplements; Female; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Protective Factors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin D; Young Adult
PubMed: 31526611
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.08.015 -
Biomolecules Nov 2018According to current therapeutic approaches, a nitrate-dietary supplementation with beetroot juice (BRJ) is postulated as a nutritional strategy that might help to...
According to current therapeutic approaches, a nitrate-dietary supplementation with beetroot juice (BRJ) is postulated as a nutritional strategy that might help to control arterial blood pressure in healthy subjects, pre-hypertensive population, and even patients diagnosed and treated with drugs. In this sense, a systematic review of random clinical trials (RCTs) published from 2008 to 2018 from PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and manual searches was conducted to identify studies examining the relationship between BRJ and blood pressure. The specific inclusion criteria were: (1) RCTs; (2) trials that assessed only the BRJ intake with control group; and (3) trials that reported the effects of this intervention on blood pressure. The search identified 11 studies that met the inclusion criteria. This review was able to demonstrate that BRJ supplementation is a cost-effective strategy that might reduce blood pressure in different populations, probably through the nitrate/nitrite/nitric oxide (NO₃/NO₂/NO) pathway and secondary metabolites found in . This easily found and cheap dietary intervention could significantly decrease the risk of suffering cardiovascular events and, in doing so, would help to diminish the mortality rate associated to this pathology. Hence, BRJ supplementation should be promoted as a key component of a healthy lifestyle to control blood pressure in healthy and hypertensive individuals. However, several factors related to BRJ intake (e.g., gender, secondary metabolites present in , etc.) should be studied more deeply.
Topics: Beta vulgaris; Bias; Blood Pressure; Diet; Female; Fruit and Vegetable Juices; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Nitrates; Nitric Oxide; Nitrites; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors
PubMed: 30400267
DOI: 10.3390/biom8040134 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Dec 2019An increasing number of original studies suggest that exposure to shift work and long working hours during pregnancy could be associated with the risk of adverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUD
An increasing number of original studies suggest that exposure to shift work and long working hours during pregnancy could be associated with the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, but the results remain conflicting and inconclusive.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the influences of shift work and longer working hours during pregnancy on maternal and fetal health outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
Five electronic databases and 3 gray literature sources were searched up to March 15, 2019.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Studies of all designs (except case studies and reviews) were included, which contained information on the relevant population (women who engaged in paid work during pregnancy); exposure (rotating shift work [shifts change according to a set schedule], fixed night shift [typical working period is between 11:00 pm and 11:00 am] or longer working hours [>40 hours per week]);comparator (fixed day shift [typical working period is between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm] or standard working hours [≤40 hours per week]); and outcomes (preterm delivery, low birthweight [birthweight <2500 g], small for gestational age, miscarriage, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, stillbirth, and gestational diabetes mellitus).
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
From 3305 unique citations, 62 observational studies (196,989 women) were included. "Low" to "very low" certainty evidence from these studies revealed that working rotating shifts was associated with an increased odds of preterm delivery (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.28, I = 31%), an infant small for gestational age (odds ratio, 1.18, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.38, I = 0%), preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.75, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.01, I = 75%), and gestational hypertension (odds ratio, 1.19, 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.29, I = 0%), compared to those who worked a fixed day shift. Working fixed night shifts was associated with an increased odds of preterm delivery (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.42; I = 36%) and miscarriage (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.47; I = 37%). Compared with standard hours, working longer hours was associated with an increased odds of miscarriage (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.77; I = 73%), preterm delivery (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.33; I = 30%), an infant of low birthweight (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.84; I = 0%), or an infant small for gestational age (odds ratio, 1.16, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.36, I = 57%). Dose-response analysis showed that women working more than 55.5 hours (vs 40 hours) per week had a 10% increase in the odds of having a preterm delivery.
CONCLUSION
Pregnant women who work rotating shifts, fixed night shifts, or longer hours have an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Fetal Growth Retardation; Humans; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Small for Gestational Age; Odds Ratio; Personnel Staffing and Scheduling; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Risk Factors; Shift Work Schedule; Stillbirth; Time Factors; Work Schedule Tolerance
PubMed: 31276631
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.06.051 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2020To determine the clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine the clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
DESIGN
Living systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, WHO COVID-19 database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases from 1 December 2019 to 6 October 2020, along with preprint servers, social media, and reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION
Cohort studies reporting the rates, clinical manifestations (symptoms, laboratory and radiological findings), risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed covid-19.
DATA EXTRACTION
At least two researchers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. Random effects meta-analysis was performed, with estimates pooled as odds ratios and proportions with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses will be updated regularly.
RESULTS
192 studies were included. Overall, 10% (95% confidence interval 7% to 12%; 73 studies, 67 271 women) of pregnant and recently pregnant women attending or admitted to hospital for any reason were diagnosed as having suspected or confirmed covid-19. The most common clinical manifestations of covid-19 in pregnancy were fever (40%) and cough (41%). Compared with non-pregnant women of reproductive age, pregnant and recently pregnant women with covid-19 were less likely to have symptoms (odds ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.62; I2=42.9%) or report symptoms of fever (0.49, 0.38 to 0.63; I2=40.8%), dyspnoea (0.76, 0.67 to 0.85; I2=4.4%) and myalgia (0.53, 0.36 to 0.78; I2=59.4%). The odds of admission to an intensive care unit (odds ratio 2.13, 1.53 to 2.95; I2=71.2%), invasive ventilation (2.59, 2.28 to 2.94; I2=0%) and need for extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (2.02, 1.22 to 3.34; I2=0%) were higher in pregnant and recently pregnant than non-pregnant reproductive aged women. Overall, 339 pregnant women (0.02%, 59 studies, 41 664 women) with confirmed covid-19 died from any cause. Increased maternal age (odds ratio 1.83, 1.27 to 2.63; I2=43.4%), high body mass index (2.37, 1.83 to 3.07; I2=0%), any pre-existing maternal comorbidity (1.81, 1.49 to 2.20; I2=0%), chronic hypertension (2.0, 1.14 to 3.48; I2=0%), pre-existing diabetes (2.12, 1.62 to 2.78; I2=0%), and pre-eclampsia (4.21, 1.27 to 14.0; I2=0%) were associated with severe covid-19 in pregnancy. In pregnant women with covid-19, increased maternal age, high body mass index, non-white ethnicity, any pre-existing maternal comorbidity including chronic hypertension and diabetes, and pre-eclampsia were associated with serious complications such as admission to an intensive care unit, invasive ventilation and maternal death. Compared to pregnant women without covid-19, those with the disease had increased odds of maternal death (odds ratio 2.85, 1.08 to 7.52; I2=0%), of needing admission to the intensive care unit (18.58, 7.53 to 45.82; I2=0%), and of preterm birth (1.47, 1.14 to 1.91; I2=18.6%). The odds of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (4.89, 1.87 to 12.81, I2=96.2%) were higher in babies born to mothers with covid-19 versus those without covid-19.
CONCLUSION
Pregnant and recently pregnant women with covid-19 attending or admitted to the hospitals for any reason are less likely to manifest symptoms such as fever, dyspnoea, and myalgia, and are more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit or needing invasive ventilation than non-pregnant women of reproductive age. Pre-existing comorbidities, non-white ethnicity, chronic hypertension, pre-existing diabetes, high maternal age, and high body mass index are risk factors for severe covid-19 in pregnancy. Pregnant women with covid-19 versus without covid-19 are more likely to deliver preterm and could have an increased risk of maternal death and of being admitted to the intensive care unit. Their babies are more likely to be admitted to the neonatal unit.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020178076.
READERS' NOTE
This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 1 of the original article published on 1 September 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m3320), and previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3320/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Female; Global Health; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care, Neonatal; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Premature Birth; Prognosis; Risk Factors; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32873575
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m3320 -
Treatments for women with gestational diabetes mellitus: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Successful treatments for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have the potential to improve health outcomes for women with GDM and their babies. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Successful treatments for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have the potential to improve health outcomes for women with GDM and their babies.
OBJECTIVES
To provide a comprehensive synthesis of evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews of the benefits and harms associated with interventions for treating GDM on women and their babies.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (5 January 2018) for reviews of treatment/management for women with GDM. Reviews of pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes were excluded.Two overview authors independently assessed reviews for inclusion, quality (AMSTAR; ROBIS), quality of evidence (GRADE), and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 reviews. Of these, 10 provided relevant high-quality and low-risk of bias data (AMSTAR and ROBIS) from 128 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 27 comparisons, 17,984 women, 16,305 babies, and 1441 children. Evidence ranged from high- to very low-quality (GRADE). Only one effective intervention was found for treating women with GDM.EffectiveLifestyle versus usual careLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably reduces large-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.71; 6 RCTs, N = 2994; GRADE moderate-quality).PromisingNo evidence for any outcome for any comparison could be classified to this category.Ineffective or possibly harmful Lifestyle versus usual careLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably increases the risk of induction of labour (IOL) suggesting possible harm (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.46; 4 RCTs, N = 2699; GRADE moderate-quality).Exercise versus controlExercise intervention versus control for return to pre-pregnancy weight suggested ineffectiveness (body mass index, BMI) MD 0.11 kg/m², 95% CI -1.04 to 1.26; 3 RCTs, N = 254; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus oral therapyInsulin intervention versus oral therapy probably increases the risk of IOL suggesting possible harm (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 3 RCTs, N = 348; GRADE moderate-quality).Probably ineffective or harmful interventionsInsulin versus oral therapyFor insulin compared to oral therapy there is probably an increased risk of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12; 4 RCTs, N = 1214; GRADE moderate-quality).InconclusiveLifestyle versus usual careThe evidence for childhood adiposity kg/m² (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11; 3 RCTs, N = 767; GRADE moderate-quality) and hypoglycaemia was inconclusive (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.52; 6 RCTs, N = 3000; GRADE moderate-quality).Exercise versus controlThe evidence for caesarean section (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 5 RCTs, N = 316; GRADE moderate quality) and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite was inconclusive (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.61; 2 RCTs, N = 169; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus oral therapyThe evidence for the following outcomes was inconclusive: pre-eclampsia (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.52; 10 RCTs, N = 2060), caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; 17 RCTs, N = 1988), large-for-gestational age (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; 13 RCTs, N = 2352), and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26; 2 RCTs, N = 760). GRADE assessment was moderate-quality for these outcomes.Insulin versus dietThe evidence for perinatal mortality was inconclusive (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.33; 4 RCTs, N = 1137; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus insulinThe evidence for insulin aspart versus lispro for risk of caesarean section was inconclusive (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; 3 RCTs, N = 410; GRADE moderate quality).No conclusions possibleNo conclusions were possible for: lifestyle versus usual care (perineal trauma, postnatal depression, neonatal adiposity, number of antenatal visits/admissions); diet versus control (pre-eclampsia, caesarean section); myo-inositol versus placebo (hypoglycaemia); metformin versus glibenclamide (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, pregnancy-induced hypertension, death or serious morbidity composite, insulin versus oral therapy (development of type 2 diabetes); intensive management versus routine care (IOL, large-for-gestational age); post- versus pre-prandial glucose monitoring (large-for-gestational age). The evidence ranged from moderate-, low- and very low-quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently there is insufficient high-quality evidence about the effects on health outcomes of relevance for women with GDM and their babies for many of the comparisons in this overview comparing treatment interventions for women with GDM. Lifestyle changes (including as a minimum healthy eating, physical activity and self-monitoring of blood sugar levels) was the only intervention that showed possible health improvements for women and their babies. Lifestyle interventions may result in fewer babies being large. Conversely, in terms of harms, lifestyle interventions may also increase the number of inductions. Taking insulin was also associated with an increase in hypertensive disorders, when compared to oral therapy. There was very limited information on long-term health and health services costs. Further high-quality research is needed.
Topics: Diabetes, Gestational; Exercise; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Hypoglycemic Agents; Infant, Newborn; Insulin; Labor, Induced; Life Style; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 30103263
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012327.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Elevated blood pressure, or hypertension, is the leading cause of preventable deaths globally. Diets high in sodium (predominantly sodium chloride) and low in potassium... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Elevated blood pressure, or hypertension, is the leading cause of preventable deaths globally. Diets high in sodium (predominantly sodium chloride) and low in potassium contribute to elevated blood pressure. The WHO recommends decreasing mean population sodium intake through effective and safe strategies to reduce hypertension and its associated disease burden. Incorporating low-sodium salt substitutes (LSSS) into population strategies has increasingly been recognised as a possible sodium reduction strategy, particularly in populations where a substantial proportion of overall sodium intake comes from discretionary salt. The LSSS contain lower concentrations of sodium through its displacement with potassium predominantly, or other minerals. Potassium-containing LSSS can potentially simultaneously decrease sodium intake and increase potassium intake. Benefits of LSSS include their potential blood pressure-lowering effect and relatively low cost. However, there are concerns about potential adverse effects of LSSS, such as hyperkalaemia, particularly in people at risk, for example, those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or taking medications that impair potassium excretion.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects and safety of replacing salt with LSSS to reduce sodium intake on cardiovascular health in adults, pregnant women and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCOhost), ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 18 August 2021, and screened reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews. No language or publication restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective analytical cohort studies in participants of any age in the general population, from any setting in any country. This included participants with non-communicable diseases and those taking medications that impair potassium excretion. Studies had to compare any type and method of implementation of LSSS with the use of regular salt, or no active intervention, at an individual, household or community level, for any duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles to determine eligibility; and extracted data, assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB tool, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We stratified analyses by adults, children (≤ 18 years) and pregnant women. Primary effectiveness outcomes were change in diastolic and systolic blood pressure (DBP and SBP), hypertension and blood pressure control; cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality were additionally assessed as primary effectiveness outcomes in adults. Primary safety outcomes were change in blood potassium, hyperkalaemia and hypokalaemia.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 RCTs, 16 randomising individual participants and 10 randomising clusters (families, households or villages). A total of 34,961 adult participants and 92 children were randomised to either LSSS or regular salt, with the smallest trial including 10 and the largest including 20,995 participants. No studies in pregnant women were identified. Studies included only participants with hypertension (11/26), normal blood pressure (1/26), pre-hypertension (1/26), or participants with and without hypertension (11/26). This was unknown in the remaining studies. The largest study included only participants with an elevated risk of stroke at baseline. Seven studies included adult participants possibly at risk of hyperkalaemia. All 26 trials specifically excluded participants in whom an increased potassium intake is known to be potentially harmful. The majority of trials were conducted in rural or suburban settings, with more than half (14/26) conducted in low- and middle-income countries. The proportion of sodium chloride replacement in the LSSS interventions varied from approximately 3% to 77%. The majority of trials (23/26) investigated LSSS where potassium-containing salts were used to substitute sodium. In most trials, LSSS implementation was discretionary (22/26). Trial duration ranged from two months to nearly five years. We assessed the overall risk of bias as high in six trials and unclear in 12 trials. LSSS compared to regular salt in adults: LSSS compared to regular salt probably reduce DBP on average (mean difference (MD) -2.43 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.50 to -1.36; 20,830 participants, 19 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) and SBP (MD -4.76 mmHg, 95% CI -6.01 to -3.50; 21,414 participants, 20 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) slightly. On average, LSSS probably reduce non-fatal stroke (absolute effect (AE) 20 fewer/100,000 person-years, 95% CI -40 to 2; 21,250 participants, 3 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal acute coronary syndrome (AE 150 fewer/100,000 person-years, 95% CI -250 to -30; 20,995 participants, 1 RCT, moderate-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (AE 180 fewer/100,000 person-years, 95% CI -310 to 0; 23,200 participants, 3 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) slightly, and probably increase blood potassium slightly (MD 0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.18; 784 participants, 6 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence), compared to regular salt. LSSS may result in little to no difference, on average, in hypertension (AE 17 fewer/1000, 95% CI -58 to 17; 2566 participants, 1 RCT, low-certainty evidence) and hyperkalaemia (AE 4 more/100,000, 95% CI -47 to 121; 22,849 participants, 5 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) compared to regular salt. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of LSSS on blood pressure control, various cardiovascular events, stroke mortality, hypokalaemia, and other adverse events (very-low certainty evidence). LSSS compared to regular salt in children: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of LSSS on DBP and SBP in children. We found no evidence about the effects of LSSS on hypertension, blood pressure control, blood potassium, hyperkalaemia and hypokalaemia in children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When compared to regular salt, LSSS probably reduce blood pressure, non-fatal cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality slightly in adults. However, LSSS also probably increase blood potassium slightly in adults. These small effects may be important when LSSS interventions are implemented at the population level. Evidence is limited for adults without elevated blood pressure, and there is a lack of evidence in pregnant women and people in whom an increased potassium intake is known to be potentially harmful, limiting conclusions on the safety of LSSS in the general population. We also cannot draw firm conclusions about effects of non-discretionary LSSS implementations. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of LSSS on blood pressure in children.
Topics: Adult; Child; Female; Humans; Hyperkalemia; Hypertension; Hypokalemia; Potassium; Pregnancy; Pregnant Women; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium; Sodium Chloride; Sodium Chloride, Dietary; Stroke
PubMed: 35944931
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015207 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent progression to more severe disease, and thereby improve pregnancy outcome.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent progression to more severe disease, and thereby improve pregnancy outcome. This Cochrane Review is an updated review, first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2007 and 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antihypertensive drug treatments for women with mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (13 September 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised trials evaluating any antihypertensive drug treatment for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy, defined as systolic blood pressure 140 to 169 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure 90 to 109 mmHg. Comparisons were of one or more antihypertensive drug(s) with placebo, with no antihypertensive drug, or with another antihypertensive drug, and where treatment was planned to continue for at least seven days.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we included 63 trials (data from 58 trials, 5909 women), with moderate to high risk of bias overall.We carried out GRADE assessments for the main 'antihypertensive drug versus placebo/no antihypertensive drug' comparison only. Evidence was graded from very low to moderate certainty, with downgrading mainly due to design limitations and imprecision.For many outcomes, trials contributing data evaluated different hypertensive drugs; while we did not downgrade for this indirectness, results should be interpreted with caution.Antihypertensive drug versus placebo/no antihypertensive drug (31 trials, 3485 women)Primary outcomes: moderate-certainty evidence suggests that use of antihypertensive drug(s) probably halves the risk of developing severe hypertension (risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.60; 20 trials, 2558 women), but may have little or no effect on the risk of proteinuria/pre-eclampsia (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.92; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.14; 23 trials, 2851 women; low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence also shows that antihypertensive drug(s) probably have little or no effect in the risk of total reported fetal or neonatal death (including miscarriage) (aRR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.04; 29 trials, 3365 women), small-for-gestational-age babies (aRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18; 21 trials, 2686 babies) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks (aRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; 15 trials, 2141 women).
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
we are uncertain of the effect of antihypertensive drug(s) on the risk of maternal death, severe pre-eclampsia, or eclampsia, orimpaired long-term growth and development of the baby in infancy and childhood, because the certainty of this evidence is very low. There may be little or no effect on the risk of changed/stopped drugs due to maternal side-effects, or admission to neonatal or intensive care nursery (low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of elective delivery (moderate-certainty evidence).Antihypertensive drug versus another antihypertensive drug (29 trials, 2774 women)Primary outcomes: beta blockers and calcium channel blockers together in the meta-analysis appear to be more effective than methyldopa in avoiding an episode of severe hypertension (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.88; 11 trials, 638 women). There was also an increase in this risk when other antihypertensive drugs were compared with calcium channel blockers (RR 1.86; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.15; 5 trials, 223 women), but no evidence of a difference when methyldopa and calcium channel blockers together were compared with beta blockers (RR1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.48; 10 trials, 692 women). No evidence of a difference in the risk of proteinuria/pre-eclampsia was found when alternative drugs were compared with methyldopa (aRR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.06; 11 trials, 997 women), with calcium channel blockers (aRR: 1.24, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.19; 5 trials, 375 women), or with beta blockers (aRR 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.67; 12 trials, 1107 women).For the babies, we found no evidence of a difference in the risk oftotal reported fetal or neonatal death (including miscarriage) when comparing other antihypertensive drugs with methyldopa (aRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.14; 22 trials, 1791 babies), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.57; nine trials, 700 babies), or with beta blockers (aRR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.88; 19 trials, 1652 babies); nor in the risk for small-for-gestational age in the comparison with methyldopa (aRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.20; seven trials, 597 babies), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.73; four trials, 200 babies), or with beta blockers (average RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.60; 7 trials, 680 babies). No evidence of an overall difference among groups in the risk of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) was found in the comparison with methyldopa (aRR: 0.91; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.22; 11 trials, 835 women), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.23; six trials, 330 women), or with beta blockers (aRR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.66; 9 trials, 806 women).
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
There were no cases of maternal death andeclampsia. There is no evidence of a difference in the risk of severe pre-eclampsia, changed/stopped drug due to maternal side-effects, elective delivery, admission to neonatal or intensive care nursery when other antihypertensive drugs are compared with methyldopa, calcium channel blockers or beta blockers. Impaired long-term growth and development in infancy and childhood was not reported for these comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antihypertensive drug therapy for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy reduces the risk of severe hypertension. The effect on other clinically important outcomes remains unclear. If antihypertensive drugs are used, beta blockers and calcium channel blockers appear to be more effective than the alternatives for preventing severe hypertension. High-quality large sample-sized randomised controlled trials are required in order to provide reliable estimates of the benefits and adverse effects of antihypertensive treatment for mild to moderate hypertension for both mother and baby, as well as costs to the health services, women and their families.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Female; Fetal Death; Humans; Hypertension; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Small for Gestational Age; Maternal Death; Placebo Effect; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular; Proteinuria; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30277556
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002252.pub4 -
Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing hypertensive disorders and related problems.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are common causes of serious morbidity and death. Calcium supplementation may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia, and may help to prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are common causes of serious morbidity and death. Calcium supplementation may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia, and may help to prevent preterm birth. This is an update of a review last published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of calcium supplementation during pregnancy on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and related maternal and child outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 September 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised trials, comparing high-dose calcium supplementation (at least 1 g daily of calcium) during pregnancy with placebo. For low-dose calcium we included quasi-randomised trials, trials without placebo, trials with cointerventions and dose comparison trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two researchers independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two researchers assessed the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 studies (18,064 women). We assessed the included studies as being at low risk of bias, although bias was frequently difficult to assess due to poor reporting and inadequate information on methods.High-dose calcium supplementation (≥ 1 g/day) versus placeboFourteen studies examined this comparison, however one study contributed no data. The 13 studies contributed data from 15,730 women to our meta-analyses. The average risk of high blood pressure (BP) was reduced with calcium supplementation compared with placebo (12 trials, 15,470 women: risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.81; I² = 74%). There was also a reduction in the risk of pre-eclampsia associated with calcium supplementation (13 trials, 15,730 women: average RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.65; I² = 70%; low-quality evidence). This effect was clear for women with low calcium diets (eight trials, 10,678 women: average RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.65; I² = 76%) but not those with adequate calcium diets. The effect appeared to be greater for women at higher risk of pre-eclampsia, though this may be due to small-study effects (five trials, 587 women: average RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.42). These data should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of small-study effects or publication bias. In the largest trial, the reduction in pre-eclampsia was modest (8%) and the CI included the possibility of no effect.The composite outcome maternal death or serious morbidity was reduced with calcium supplementation (four trials, 9732 women; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98). Maternal deaths were no different (one trial of 8312 women: one death in the calcium group versus six in the placebo group). There was an anomalous increase in the risk of HELLP syndrome in the calcium group (two trials, 12,901 women: RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.82, high-quality evidence), however, the absolute number of events was low (16 versus six).The average risk of preterm birth was reduced in the calcium supplementation group (11 trials, 15,275 women: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97; I² = 60%; low-quality evidence); this reduction was greatest amongst women at higher risk of developing pre-eclampsia (four trials, 568 women: average RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.83; I² = 60%). Again, these data should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of small-study effects or publication bias. There was no clear effect on admission to neonatal intensive care. There was also no clear effect on the risk of stillbirth or infant death before discharge from hospital (11 trials, 15,665 babies: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09).One study showed a reduction in childhood systolic BP greater than 95th percentile among children exposed to calcium supplementation in utero (514 children: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.91). In a subset of these children, dental caries at 12 years old was also reduced (195 children, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87).Low-dose calcium supplementation (< 1 g/day) versus placebo or no treatmentTwelve trials (2334 women) evaluated low-dose (usually 500 mg daily) supplementation with calcium alone (four trials) or in association with vitamin D (five trials), linoleic acid (two trials), or antioxidants (one trial). Most studies recruited women at high risk for pre-eclampsia, and were at high risk of bias, thus the results should be interpreted with caution. Supplementation with low doses of calcium reduced the risk of pre-eclampsia (nine trials, 2234 women: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.52). There was also a reduction in high BP (five trials, 665 women: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.74), admission to neonatal intensive care unit (one trial, 422 women, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.99), but not preterm birth (six trials, 1290 women, average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.03), or stillbirth or death before discharge (five trials, 1025 babies, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.67).High-dose (=/> 1 g) versus low-dose (< 1 g) calcium supplementationWe included one trial with 262 women, the results of which should be interpreted with caution due to unclear risk of bias. Risk of pre-eclampsia appeared to be reduced in the high-dose group (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.96). No other differences were found (preterm birth: RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.08; eclampsia: RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.53; stillbirth: RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.83).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
High-dose calcium supplementation (≥ 1 g/day) may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia and preterm birth, particularly for women with low calcium diets (low-quality evidence). The treatment effect may be overestimated due to small-study effects or publication bias. It reduces the occurrence of the composite outcome 'maternal death or serious morbidity', but not stillbirth or neonatal high care admission. There was an increased risk of HELLP syndrome with calcium supplementation, which was small in absolute numbers.The limited evidence on low-dose calcium supplementation suggests a reduction in pre-eclampsia, hypertension and admission to neonatal high care, but needs to be confirmed by larger, high-quality trials.
Topics: Calcium; Dietary Supplements; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Linoleic Acid; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular; Premature Birth; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin D; Vitamins
PubMed: 30277579
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001059.pub5