-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2018Omega-6 fats are polyunsaturated fats vital for many physiological functions, but their effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is debated. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Omega-6 fats are polyunsaturated fats vital for many physiological functions, but their effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is debated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess effects of increasing omega-6 fats (linoleic acid (LA), gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA) and arachidonic acid (AA)) on CVD and all-cause mortality.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to May 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher versus lower omega-6 fat intake in adults with or without CVD, assessing effects over at least 12 months. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished studies. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, CVD events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and potential adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate omega-6 fat effects from those of other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included trials. We wrote to authors of included studies. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, while sensitivity analyses used fixed-effects and limited analyses to trials at low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence for 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 RCTs in 6461 participants who were followed for one to eight years. Seven trials assessed the effects of supplemental GLA and 12 of LA, none DGLA or AA; the omega-6 fats usually displaced dietary saturated or monounsaturated fats. We assessed three RCTs as being at low summary risk of bias.Primary outcomes: we found low-quality evidence that increased intake of omega-6 fats may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.12, 740 deaths, 4506 randomised, 10 trials) or CVD events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.15, 1404 people experienced events of 4962 randomised, 7 trials). We are uncertain whether increasing omega-6 fats affects CVD mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.55, 472 deaths, 4019 randomised, 7 trials), coronary heart disease events (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.17, 1059 people with events of 3997 randomised, 7 trials), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.20, 817 events, 2879 participants, 2 trials) or stroke (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.11, 54 events, 3730 participants, 4 trials), as we assessed the evidence as being of very low quality. We found no evidence of dose-response or duration effects for any primary outcome, but there was a suggestion of greater protection in participants with lower baseline omega-6 intake across outcomes.Additional key outcomes: we found increased intake of omega-6 fats may reduce myocardial infarction (MI) risk (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.02, 609 events, 4606 participants, 7 trials, low-quality evidence). High-quality evidence suggests increasing omega-6 fats reduces total serum cholesterol a little in the long term (mean difference (MD) -0.33 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.16, I = 81%; heterogeneity partially explained by dose, 4280 participants, 10 trials). Increasing omega-6 fats probably has little or no effect on adiposity (body mass index (BMI) MD -0.20 kg/m, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.16, 371 participants, 1 trial, moderate-quality evidence). It may make little or no difference to serum triglycerides (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.21, 834 participants, 5 trials), HDL (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02, 1995 participants, 4 trials) or low-density lipoprotein (MD -0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.14, 244 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-6 fats on cardiovascular health, mortality, lipids and adiposity to date, using previously unpublished data. We found no evidence that increasing omega-6 fats reduces cardiovascular outcomes other than MI, where 53 people may need to increase omega-6 fat intake to prevent 1 person from experiencing MI. Although benefits of omega-6 fats remain to be proven, increasing omega-6 fats may be of benefit in people at high risk of MI. Increased omega-6 fats reduce serum total cholesterol but not other blood fat fractions or adiposity.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Blood Pressure; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Fatty Acids, Omega-6; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Triglycerides
PubMed: 30488422
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011094.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Researchers have suggested that omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from oily fish (long-chain omega-3 (LCn3), including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Researchers have suggested that omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from oily fish (long-chain omega-3 (LCn3), including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)), as well as from plants (alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)) benefit cardiovascular health. Guidelines recommend increasing omega-3-rich foods, and sometimes supplementation, but recent trials have not confirmed this.
OBJECTIVES
To assess effects of increased intake of fish- and plant-based omega-3 for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CVD) events, adiposity and lipids.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017, plus ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry to September 2016, with no language restrictions. We handsearched systematic review references and bibliographies and contacted authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that lasted at least 12 months and compared supplementation and/or advice to increase LCn3 or ALA intake versus usual or lower intake.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed validity. We performed separate random-effects meta-analysis for ALA and LCn3 interventions, and assessed dose-response relationships through meta-regression.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 79 RCTs (112,059 participants) in this review update and found that 25 were at low summary risk of bias. Trials were of 12 to 72 months' duration and included adults at varying cardiovascular risk, mainly in high-income countries. Most studies assessed LCn3 supplementation with capsules, but some used LCn3- or ALA-rich or enriched foods or dietary advice compared to placebo or usual diet.Meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses suggested little or no effect of increasing LCn3 on all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03, 92,653 participants; 8189 deaths in 39 trials, high-quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03, 67,772 participants; 4544 CVD deaths in 25 RCTs), cardiovascular events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04, 90,378 participants; 14,737 people experienced events in 38 trials, high-quality evidence), coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09, 73,491 participants; 1596 CHD deaths in 21 RCTs), stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, 89,358 participants; 1822 strokes in 28 trials) or arrhythmia (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05, 53,796 participants; 3788 people experienced arrhythmia in 28 RCTs). There was a suggestion that LCn3 reduced CHD events (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97, 84,301 participants; 5469 people experienced CHD events in 28 RCTs); however, this was not maintained in sensitivity analyses - LCn3 probably makes little or no difference to CHD event risk. All evidence was of moderate GRADE quality, except as noted.Increasing ALA intake probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20, 19,327 participants; 459 deaths, 5 RCTs),cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25, 18,619 participants; 219 cardiovascular deaths, 4 RCTs), and it may make little or no difference to CHD events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, 19,061 participants, 397 CHD events, 4 RCTs, low-quality evidence). However, increased ALA may slightly reduce risk of cardiovascular events (from 4.8% to 4.7%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07, 19,327 participants; 884 CVD events, 5 RCTs, low-quality evidence), and probably reduces risk of CHD mortality (1.1% to 1.0%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26, 18,353 participants; 193 CHD deaths, 3 RCTs), and arrhythmia (3.3% to 2.6%, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10, 4,837 participants; 141 events, 1 RCT). Effects on stroke are unclear.Sensitivity analysis retaining only trials at low summary risk of bias moved effect sizes towards the null (RR 1.0) for all LCn3 primary outcomes except arrhythmias, but for most ALA outcomes, effect sizes moved to suggest protection. LCn3 funnel plots suggested that adding in missing studies/results would move effect sizes towards null for most primary outcomes. There were no dose or duration effects in subgrouping or meta-regression.There was no evidence that increasing LCn3 or ALA altered serious adverse events, adiposity or lipids, although LCn3 slightly reduced triglycerides and increased HDL. ALA probably reduces HDL (high- or moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date. Moderate- and high-quality evidence suggests that increasing EPA and DHA has little or no effect on mortality or cardiovascular health (evidence mainly from supplement trials). Previous suggestions of benefits from EPA and DHA supplements appear to spring from trials with higher risk of bias. Low-quality evidence suggests ALA may slightly reduce CVD event risk, CHD mortality and arrhythmia.
Topics: Adult; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Dietary Supplements; Docosahexaenoic Acids; Eicosapentaenoic Acid; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Humans; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Treatment Outcome; alpha-Linolenic Acid
PubMed: 30019766
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003177.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Omega-6 fats are polyunsaturated fats vital for many physiological functions, but their effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is debated. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Omega-6 fats are polyunsaturated fats vital for many physiological functions, but their effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is debated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess effects of increasing omega-6 fats (linoleic acid (LA), gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA) and arachidonic acid (AA)) on CVD and all-cause mortality.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to May 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher versus lower omega-6 fat intake in adults with or without CVD, assessing effects over at least 12 months. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished studies. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, CVD events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and potential adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate omega-6 fat effects from those of other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included trials. We wrote to authors of included studies. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, while sensitivity analyses used fixed-effects and limited analyses to trials at low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence for 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 RCTs in 6461 participants who were followed for one to eight years. Seven trials assessed the effects of supplemental GLA and 12 of LA, none DGLA or AA; the omega-6 fats usually displaced dietary saturated or monounsaturated fats. We assessed three RCTs as being at low summary risk of bias.Primary outcomes: we found low-quality evidence that increased intake of omega-6 fats may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.12, 740 deaths, 4506 randomised, 10 trials) or CVD events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.15, 1404 people experienced events of 4962 randomised, 7 trials). We are uncertain whether increasing omega-6 fats affects CVD mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.55, 472 deaths, 4019 randomised, 7 trials), coronary heart disease events (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.17, 1059 people with events of 3997 randomised, 7 trials), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.20, 817 events, 2879 participants, 2 trials) or stroke (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.11, 54 events, 3730 participants, 4 trials), as we assessed the evidence as being of very low quality. We found no evidence of dose-response or duration effects for any primary outcome, but there was a suggestion of greater protection in participants with lower baseline omega-6 intake across outcomes.Additional key outcomes: we found increased intake of omega-6 fats may reduce myocardial infarction (MI) risk (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.02, 609 events, 4606 participants, 7 trials, low-quality evidence). High-quality evidence suggests increasing omega-6 fats reduces total serum cholesterol a little in the long term (mean difference (MD) -0.33 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.16, I = 81%; heterogeneity partially explained by dose, 4280 participants, 10 trials). Increasing omega-6 fats probably has little or no effect on adiposity (body mass index (BMI) MD -0.20 kg/m, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.16, 371 participants, 1 trial, moderate-quality evidence). It may make little or no difference to serum triglycerides (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.21, 834 participants, 5 trials), HDL (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02, 1995 participants, 4 trials) or low-density lipoprotein (MD -0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.14, 244 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-6 fats on cardiovascular health, mortality, lipids and adiposity to date, using previously unpublished data. We found no evidence that increasing omega-6 fats reduces cardiovascular outcomes other than MI, where 53 people may need to increase omega-6 fat intake to prevent 1 person from experiencing MI. Although benefits of omega-6 fats remain to be proven, increasing omega-6 fats may be of benefit in people at high risk of MI. Increased omega-6 fats reduce serum total cholesterol but not other blood fat fractions or adiposity.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Blood Pressure; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Fatty Acids, Omega-6; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Triglycerides
PubMed: 30019765
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011094.pub3 -
Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical... 2018As breast milk is considered nature's best food for infant growth and development, understanding its nutritional composition is crucial for optimising the components of...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
As breast milk is considered nature's best food for infant growth and development, understanding its nutritional composition is crucial for optimising the components of infant formula milk. In this study, we aimed to summarise the available evidence on the nutritional composition of breast milk from Chinese women, in particular, the macronutrients, fatty acids and minerals.
METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN
We searched PubMed, Embase, and Chinese databases for articles about human breast milk from Chinese women published in English or Chinese between 1999 and 2015. We classified the data in 35 articles from the literature search into three lactation stages: colostral, transitional and mature milk.
RESULTS
The content of each component varied greatly during the three lactation stages. Protein content decreased from colostral milk to mature milk (mean±SD, 1.64±0.32 g/dL vs 1.22±0.12 g/dL). In contrast, lipid content increased from colostral milk (2.36±1.17 g/dL) to mature milk (3.39±1.24 g/dL). Colostrum contained more linoleic acid (LA) than transitional and mature milk, while colostrum contained less α-linolenic acid (ALA) than transitional and mature milk. As lactation progressed, the ratios of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (AA) to total fatty acids decreased while the potassium (K), zinc (Zn), and copper (Cu) concentrations decreased significantly, but their standard deviations were large. Magnesium (Mg) and manganese (Mn) concentrations showed significant differences across the three lactation stages.
CONCLUSIONS
The stage of lactation was an important factor affecting the nutritional composition of breast milk from Chinese women.
Topics: Asian People; China; Female; Humans; Lactation; Milk, Human; Nutritive Value
PubMed: 29737794
DOI: 10.6133/apjcn.042017.13 -
International Journal of Preventive... 2018The evidence on the association between omega-3 consumption and epileptic seizure is inconsistent. Therefore, we have conducted this systematic review to clarify the... (Review)
Review
The evidence on the association between omega-3 consumption and epileptic seizure is inconsistent. Therefore, we have conducted this systematic review to clarify the possible relationship. Original articles were searched in electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Ovid) and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved articles. The main evaluated outcome was the epileptic seizures. We included the English language studies that reported the original data on the effect of omega-3 on epileptic human patients. We included the nine articles with 230 patients in the present systematic review. The mean ± standard deviation age of them was about 31.01 ± 14.99 years. The average of study duration was 22 ± 15.27 weeks. Omega-3 fatty acid supplements were defined as the sum of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (1100 mg/d); as the sum of EPA, DHA, and alpha-linolenic acid (5 g/d); and as the sum of EPA alone (565 mg/d) in different studies. Among the nine studies, four studies reported a significant positive association between omega-3 fatty acids and epileptic seizures. However, power and quality of these studies are low, and we cannot consider the beneficial effect of omega-3 on seizures. In addition, five studies did not reveal any significant effect. Majority of the included studies did not show a significant association between omega-3 and epileptic seizure in epileptic patients, but further studies are necessary. It is controversial whether omega-3 fatty acids can produce positive effects on epileptic patients or not.
PubMed: 29721237
DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_281_16 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Antipsychotic (neuroleptic) medication is used extensively to treat people with chronic mental illnesses. Its use, however, is associated with adverse effects, including... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antipsychotic (neuroleptic) medication is used extensively to treat people with chronic mental illnesses. Its use, however, is associated with adverse effects, including movement disorders such as tardive dyskinesia (TD) - a problem often seen as repetitive involuntary movements around the mouth and face. This review, one in a series examining the treatment of TD, covers miscellaneous treatments not covered elsewhere.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether drugs, hormone-, dietary-, or herb-supplements not covered in other Cochrane reviews on TD treatments, surgical interventions, electroconvulsive therapy, and mind-body therapies were effective and safe for people with antipsychotic-induced TD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including trial registers (16 July 2015 and 26 April 2017), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted authors of trials for additional information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included reports if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) dealing with people with antipsychotic-induced TD and schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses who remained on their antipsychotic medication and had been randomly allocated to the interventions listed above versus placebo, no intervention, or any other intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently extracted data from these trials and we estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assumed that people who left early had no improvement. We assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 31 RCTs of 24 interventions with 1278 participants; 22 of these trials were newly included in this 2017 update. Five trials are awaiting classification and seven trials are ongoing. All participants were adults with chronic psychiatric disorders, mostly schizophrenia, and antipsychotic-induced TD. Studies were primarily of short (three to six6 weeks) duration with small samples size (10 to 157 participants), and most (61%) were published more than 20 years ago. The overall risk of bias in these studies was unclear, mainly due to poor reporting of allocation concealment, generation of the sequence, and blinding.Nineteen of the 31 included studies reported on the primary outcome 'No clinically important improvement in TD symptoms'. Two studies found moderate-quality evidence of a benefit of the intervention compared with placebo: valbenazine (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.86, 1 RCT, n = 92) and extract of Ginkgo biloba (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96, 1 RCT, n = 157), respectively. However, due to small sample sizes we cannot be certain of these effects.We consider the results for the remaining interventions to be inconclusive: Low- to very low-quality evidence of a benefit was found for buspirone (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84, 1 RCT, n = 42), dihydrogenated ergot alkaloids (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.97, 1 RCT, n = 28), hypnosis or relaxation, (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.94, 1 study, n = 15), pemoline (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.77, 1 RCT, n = 46), promethazine (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.55, 1 RCT, n = 34), insulin (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96, 1 RCT, n = 20), branched chain amino acids (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.00, 1 RCT, n = 52), and isocarboxazid (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71, 1 RCT, n = 20). There was low- to very low-certainty evidence of no difference between intervention and placebo or no treatment for the following interventions: melatonin (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.12, 2 RCTs, n = 32), lithium (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.23, 1 RCT, n = 11), ritanserin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.43, 1 RCT, n = 10), selegiline (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.94, 1 RCT, n = 33), oestrogen (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.83, 1 RCT, n = 12), and gamma-linolenic acid (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.45, 1 RCT, n = 16).None of the included studies reported on the other primary outcome, 'no clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects'.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review has found that the use of valbenazine or extract of Ginkgo biloba may be effective in relieving the symptoms of tardive dyskinesia. However, since only one RCT has investigated each one of these compounds, we are awaiting results from ongoing trials to confirm these results. Results for the remaining interventions covered in this review must be considered inconclusive and these compounds probably should only be used within the context of a well-designed evaluative study.
Topics: Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors; Adult; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Dihydroergotoxine; Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced; Ginkgo biloba; Humans; Hypnosis; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Relaxation Therapy; Tetrabenazine; Valine
PubMed: 29552749
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000208.pub2 -
Nutrition Reviews Apr 2018Chia seed is a popular dietary supplement, taken mainly for its high content of alpha-linolenic acid, vegetable protein, and dietary fiber, yet information about its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Chia seed is a popular dietary supplement, taken mainly for its high content of alpha-linolenic acid, vegetable protein, and dietary fiber, yet information about its clinical effects is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
This review aims to summarize the clinical evidence regarding the use of chia seed for a wide variety of health conditions.
DATA SOURCES
A number of databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched systematically.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials that assessed the clinical effects of chia seed consumption in human participants were included. The quality of trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data on study design, blinding status, characteristics of participants, chia seed intervention, comparator, clinical assessment, duration of intake, interval of assessment, and study funding status were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Twelve trials were included. Participants included healthy persons, athletes, diabetic patients, and individuals with metabolic syndrome. Pooling of results showed no significant differences except for the following findings of subgroup analysis at higher doses of chia seed: (1) lower postprandial blood glucose level (mean difference [MD] of -33.95 incremental area under the curve [iAUC] [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -61.85, -6.05] and -51.60 iAUC [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -79.64, -23.56] at medium doses and high doses, respectively); (2) lower high-density lipoprotein in serum (MD of -0.10 mmol/L [95%CI, -0.20, -0.01]); and (3) lower diastolic blood pressure (MD of -7.14 mmHg [95%CI, -11.08, -3.19]). The quality of all evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was low or very low. All trials employed only surrogate markers as outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Future trials with improved methodological quality, well-described clinical events, and validated surrogate markers as outcomes are needed to support the potential health benefits of chia seed consumption.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration no. CRD42015029990.
Topics: Biomarkers; Blood Glucose; Blood Pressure; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Lipoproteins, HDL; Postprandial Period; Salvia; Seeds
PubMed: 29452425
DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nux071 -
The British Journal of Nutrition Jan 2018Previous studies show inconsistent associations between α-linolenic acid (ALA) and risk of CHD. We aimed to examine an aggregate association between ALA intake and risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Previous studies show inconsistent associations between α-linolenic acid (ALA) and risk of CHD. We aimed to examine an aggregate association between ALA intake and risk of CHD, and assess for any dose-response relationship. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases for prospective cohort studies examining associations between ALA intake and CHD, including composite CHD and fatal CHD. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis models, comparing the highest category of ALA intake with the lowest across studies. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on study design, geographic region, age and sex. For dose-response analyses, we used two-stage random-effects dose-response models. In all, fourteen studies of thirteen cohorts were identified and included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that higher ALA intake was associated with modest reduced risk of composite CHD (risk ratios (RR)=0·91; 95 % CI 0·85, 0·97) and fatal CHD (RR=0·85; 95 % CI 0·75, 0·96). The analysis showed a J-shaped relationship between ALA intake and relative risk of composite CHD (χ 2=21·95, P<0·001). Compared with people without ALA intake, only people with ALA intake <1·4 g/d showed reduced risk of composite CHD. ALA intake was linearly associated with fatal CHD - every 1 g/d increase in ALA intake was associated with a 12 % decrease in fatal CHD risk (95 % CI -0·21, -0·04). Though a higher dietary ALA intake was associated with reduced risk of composite and fatal CHD, the excess composite CHD risk at higher ALA intakes warrants further investigation, especially through randomised controlled trials.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Cohort Studies; Coronary Disease; Diet; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Humans; Linear Models; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; alpha-Linolenic Acid
PubMed: 29355094
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114517003294 -
Nutrients Aug 2017We summarize the 2016 update of the 2004 Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality's evidence review of omega-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular disease (CVD). The overall... (Review)
Review
We summarize the 2016 update of the 2004 Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality's evidence review of omega-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular disease (CVD). The overall findings for the effects of marine oil supplements on intermediate CVD outcomes remain largely unchanged. There is high strength of evidence, based on numerous trials, of no significant effects of marine oils on systolic or diastolic blood pressures, but there are small, yet statistically significant increases in high density lipoprotein and low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. The clinical significance of these small changes, particularly in combination, is unclear. The strongest effect of marine oils is on triglyceride concentrations. Across studies, this effect was dose-dependent and related to studies' mean baseline triglyceride concentration. In observational studies, there is low strength of evidence that increased marine oil intake lowers ischemic stroke risk. Among randomized controlled trials and observational studies, there is evidence of variable strength of no association with increased marine oil intake and lower CVD event risk. Evidence regarding alpha-linolenic acid intake is sparser. There is moderate strength of evidence of no effect on blood pressure or lipoprotein concentrations and low strength of evidence of no association with coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Dietary Supplements; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Fish Oils; Humans; United States; United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
PubMed: 28800093
DOI: 10.3390/nu9080865 -
Medicine May 2017Polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) have been shown to reduce type 2 diabetes (T2DM) risk and improve insulin responsiveness in T2DM subjects, but whether the plant sources of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effect of alpha-linolenic acid on glycemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.
BACKGROUND
Polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) have been shown to reduce type 2 diabetes (T2DM) risk and improve insulin responsiveness in T2DM subjects, but whether the plant sources of omega-3 PUFA (alpha-linolenic acid [ALA]) have an effect on glycemic control requires further investigation.
METHODS
The parameters of interest were glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG), fasting blood insulin (FBI), homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), fructosamine, and glycated albumin. A comprehensive search was conducted with MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ≥1 month in duration that compared diets enriched in ALA with usual diets on glycemic parameters. For each study, the risk of bias as well as the study quality was assessed. Using the statistical software RevMan (v5.3), data were pooled using the generic inverse method with random effects model, and final results were expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochran Q statistic and quantified by the I statistic.
RESULTS
A total of 8 trials (N = 212) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to a control diet, a median dose of 4.4 g/day of ALA intake for a median duration of 3 months did not affect HbA1c (%) (MD = -.01; [95%: -.32, .31], P = .96). A median ALA dose of 5.4 g/day did not lower FBG (MD = .07; [95% CI: -.61, .76], P = .84) or FBI (MD = 7.03, [95% CI: -5.84, 19.89], P = .28). Summary effect estimates were generally compromised by considerable and unexplained heterogeneity (I ≥75%). In the subgroup analysis of continuous predictors, a reduction in HbA1c (%) and FBG (mmol/L) was significantly associated with an increased intake of ALA. Further adjustment for Publication Bias using Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill analysis provided an adjusted, significant MD of -.25 (95% CI: -.38, -.12; P <.001) for HbA1c (%).
CONCLUSIONS
ALA-enriched diets did not affect HbA1c, FBG, or FBI. The scarce number of existing RCTs and the presence of heterogeneity in our meta-analysis limit the ability to make firm conclusions about ALA in T2DM management. The potential for ALA to have dose-dependent effects warrants further research in this area.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; alpha-Linolenic Acid
PubMed: 28538363
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006531