Search

Background\ud \ud The Seven Countries study in the 1960s showed that populations in the Mediterranean region experienced lower coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality probably as a result of different dietary patterns. Later observational studies have confirmed the benefits of adherence to a Mediterranean dietary pattern on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors but clinical trial evidence is more limited.\ud \ud Objectives\ud \ud To determine the effectiveness of a Mediterranean-style dietfor the primary and secondary prevention of CVD. \ud \ud Search methods\ud \ud We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 9);MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 25 September 2018); Embase (Ovid, 1980 to2018 week 39); Web of Science Core Collection (ThomsonReuters, 1900 to 26 September 2018); DARE Issue 2 of 4, 2015 (Cochrane Library); HTA Issue 4 of 4, 2016 (Cochrane Library); NHSEED Issue 2 of 4, 2015 (Cochrane Library). We searched trial registers and applied no language restrictions.\ud \ud Selection criteria\ud \ud We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in healthy adults and adults at high risk of CVD (primary prevention) and those with established CVD (secondary prevention). Both of the following key components were required to reach our definition of a Mediterranean-style diet: high monounsaturated/saturated fat ratio (use of olive oil as main cooking ingredient and/or consumption of other traditional foods high in monounsaturated fats such as tree nuts) and a high intake of plant-based foods, including fruits, vegetables and legumes. Additional components included: low to moderate red wine consumption; high consumption of whole grains and cereals; low consumption of meat and meat products and increased consumption of fish; moderate consumption of milk and dairy products. The intervention could be dietary advice, provision of relevant foods, or both. The comparison group received either no intervention, minimal intervention, usual care or another dietary intervention. Outcomes included clinical events and CVD risk factors. We included only studies with follow-up periods of three months or more defined as the intervention period plus post intervention follow-up.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis\ud \ud Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We conducted four maincomparisons:\ud \ud 1. Mediterranean dietary intervention versus no intervention or minimal intervention for primary prevention;\ud 2. Mediterranean dietary intervention versus another dietary intervention for primary prevention;\ud 3. Mediterranean dietary intervention versus usual care forsecondary prevention;\ud 4. Mediterranean dietary intervention versus another dietary intervention for secondary prevention. \ud \ud Main results\ud \ud In this substantive review update, 30 RCTs (49 papers) (12,461participants randomised) and seven ongoing trials met our inclusion criteria. The majority of trials contributed to primary prevention: comparisons 1 (nine trials) and 2 (13 trials). Secondary prevention trials were included for comparison 3 (two trials) and comparison 4 (four trials plus an additional two trials that were excluded from the main analyses due to published concerns regarding the reliability of the data).Two trials reported on adverse events where these were absent or minor (low- to moderate-quality evidence). No trials reported on costs or health-related quality of life. \ud \ud Primary prevention\ud \ud The included studies for comparison 1 did not report on clinical endpoints (CVD mortality, total mortality or non-fatal endpoints such as myocardial infarction or stroke). The PREDIMED trial (included in comparison 2) was retracted and re-analysed following concerns regarding randomisation at two of 11 sites. Low-quality evidence shows little or no effect of the PREDIMED (7747 randomised)intervention (advice to follow a Mediterranean diet plus supplemental extra-virgin olive oil or tree nuts) compared to a low-fat diet onCVD mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.32) or total mortality (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.24)over 4.8 years. There was, however, a reduction in the number of strokes with the PREDIMED intervention (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45to 0.80), a decrease from 24/1000 to 14/1000 (95% CI 11 to 19), moderate-quality evidence). For CVD risk factors for comparison 1there was low-quality evidence for a possible small reduction in total cholesterol (-0.16 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.00) and moderate-quality evidence for a reduction in systolic (-2.99 mmHg (95% CI -3.45 to -2.53) and diastolic blood pressure (-2.0 mmHg, 95% CI -2.29 to -1.71), with low or very low-quality evidence of little orno effect on LDL or HDL cholesterol or triglycerides. For comparison2 there was moderate-quality evidence of a possible small reduction in LDL cholesterol (-0.15 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.02) andtriglycerides (-0.09 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.01) with moderateor low-quality evidence of little or no effect on total or HDLcholesterol or blood pressure.\ud \ud Secondary prevention\ud \ud For secondary prevention, the Lyon Diet Heart Study (comparison 3) examined the effect of advice to follow a Mediterranean diet and supplemental canola margarine compared to usual care in 605 CHD patients over 46 months and there was low-quality evidence of a reduction in adjusted estimates for CVD mortality (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.82) and total mortality (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to0.92) with the intervention. Only one small trial (101 participants) provided unadjusted estimates for composite clinical endpoints for comparison 4 (very low-quality evidence of uncertain effect). For comparison 3 there was low-quality evidence of little or no effect of a Mediterranean-style diet on lipid levels and very low-quality evidence for blood pressure. Similarly, for comparison 4 where only two trials contributed to the analyses there was low or very low-quality evidence of little or no effect of the intervention on lipid levels or blood pressure. \ud \ud Authors’ conclusions\ud \ud Despite the relatively large number of studies included in this review, there is still some uncertainty regarding the effects of a Mediterranean-style diet on clinical endpoints and CVD risk factors for both primary and secondary prevention. The quality of evidence for the modest benefits on CVD risk factors in primary prevention is low or moderate, with a small number of studies reporting minimal harms. There is a paucity of evidence for secondary prevention. The ongoing studies may provide more certainty in the future.\ud

Background\ud \ud Vitamin C is an essential micronutrient and powerful antioxidant. Observational studies have shown an inverse relationship between vitamin C intake and major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Results from clinical trials are less consistent.\ud Objectives\ud \ud To determine the effectiveness of vitamin C supplementation as a single supplement for the primary prevention of CVD.\ud Search methods\ud \ud We searched the following electronic databases on 11 May 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase Classic and Embase (Ovid); Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); Health Technology Assessment Database and Health Economics Evaluations Database in the Cochrane Library. We searched trial registers on 13 April 2016 and reference lists of reviews for further studies. We applied no language restrictions.\ud Selection criteria\ud \ud Randomised controlled trials of vitamin C supplementation as a single nutrient supplement lasting at least three months and involving healthy adults or adults at moderate and high risk of CVD were included. The comparison group was no intervention or placebo. The outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events and CVD risk factors.\ud Data collection and analysis\ud \ud Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risk of bias.\ud Main results\ud \ud We included eight trials with 15,445 participants randomised. The largest trial with 14,641 participants provided data on our primary outcomes. Seven trials reported on CVD risk factors. Three of the eight trials were regarded at high risk of bias for either reporting or attrition bias, most of the 'Risk of bias' domains for the remaining trials were judged as unclear, with the exception of the largest trial where most domains were judged to be at low risk of bias.\ud \ud The composite endpoint, major CVD events was not different between the vitamin C and placebo group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.10; 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence) in the Physicians Health Study II over eight years of follow-up. Similar results were obtained for all-cause mortality HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18; 1 study; 14,641 participants; very low-quality evidence, total myocardial infarction (MI) (fatal and non-fatal) HR 1.04 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.24); 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence, total stroke (fatal and non-fatal) HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.07); 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence, CVD mortality HR 1.02 (95% 0.85 to 1.22); 1 study; 14,641 participants; very low-quality evidence, self-reported coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)/percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) HR 0.96 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.07); 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence, self-reported angina HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.03); 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence.\ud \ud The evidence for the majority of primary outcomes was downgraded (low quality) because of indirectness and imprecision. For all-cause mortality and CVD mortality, the evidence was very low because more factors affected the directness of the evidence and because of inconsistency.\ud \ud Four studies did not state sources of funding, two studies declared non-commercial funding and two studies declared both commercial and non-commercial funding.\ud Authors' conclusions\ud \ud Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that vitamin C supplementation reduces the risk of CVD in healthy participants and those at increased risk of CVD, but current evidence is limited to one trial of middle-aged and older male physicians from the USA. There is limited low- and very low-quality evidence currently on the effect of vitamin C supplementation and risk of CVD risk factors.

Background\ud \ud Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. However, there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care settings.\ud \ud Objectives\ud \ud The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness, costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD.\ud \ud Search methods\ud \ud We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE on 30 January 2015, and Web of Science Core Collection and additional databases on the Cochrane Library on 4 December 2014. We also searched two clinical trial registers and checked reference lists of relevant articles. We applied no language restrictions.\ud \ud Selection criteria\ud \ud We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effects of systematic risk assessment, defined as a screening-like programme involving a predetermined selection process of people, compared with opportunistic risk assessment which ranged from no risk assessment at all to incentivised case finding of CVD and related risk factors. Participants included healthy adults from the general population, including those who are at risk of CVD.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis\ud \ud Two review authors independently selected studies. One review author extracted data and assessed them for risk of bias and a second checked them. We assessed evidence quality using the GRADE approach and present this in a ’Summary of findings’ table.\ud \ud Main results\ud \ud Nine completed RCTs met the inclusion criteria, of which four were cluster-randomised. We also identified five ongoing trials. The included studies had a high or unclear risk of bias, and the GRADE ratings of overall quality were low or very low. The length of follow-up varied from one year in four studies, three years in one study, five or six years in two studies, and ten years in two studies. Eight studies recruited participants from the general population, although there were differences in the age ranges targeted. One study recruited family members of cardiac patients (high risk assessment). There were considerable differences between the studies in the interventions received by the intervention and control groups. There was insufficient evidence to stratify by the types of risk assessment approaches.\ud \ud Limited data were available on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.02; 3 studies,103,571 participants, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11; 2 studies, 43,955 participants, I² = 0%), and suggest that screening has no effect on these outcomes. Data were also limited for combined non-fatal endpoints; overall, evidence indicates no difference in total coronary heart disease (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 4 studies, 5 comparisons, 110,168 participants, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), non-fatal coronary heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 2 studies, 43,955 participants, I² = 39%), total stroke (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10; 2 studies, 79,631 participants, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence), and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.47; 1 study, 20,015 participants).\ud \ud Overall, systematic risk assessment appears to result in lower total cholesterol levels (mean difference (MD) -0.11 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.04, 6 studies, 7 comparisons, 12,591 participants, I² = 57%; very low-quality evidence), lower systolic blood pressure (MD -3.05 mmHg, 95% CI -4.84 to -1.25, 6 studies, 7 comparisons, 12,591 participants, I² = 82%; very low-quality evidence) and lower diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.34 mmHg, 95% CI -1.76 to -0.93, 6 studies, 7 comparisons, 12,591 participants, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). One study assessed adverse effects and found no difference in psychological distress at five years (1126 participants).\ud \ud Authors' conclusions\ud \ud The results are limited by the heterogeneity between trials in terms of participants recruited, interventions and duration of follow-up. Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints. There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors. The completion of the five ongoing trials will add to the evidence base.

Background: The Seven Countries study in the 1960s showed that populations in the Mediterranean region experienced lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality probably as a result of different dietary patterns. Later observational studies have confirmed the benefits of adherence to a Mediterranean dietary pattern on CVD risk factors. Clinical trial evidence is limited, and is mostly in secondary prevention.\ud \ud Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of a Mediterranean dietary pattern for the primary prevention of CVD.\ud \ud Search methods: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 9 of 12, September 2012); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to October week 1 2012); EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to 2012 week 41); ISI Web of Science (1970 to 16 October 2012); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database and Health Economics Evaluations Database (Issue 3 of 12, September 2012). We searched trial registers and reference lists of reviews and applied no language restrictions.\ud \ud Selection criteria: We selected randomised controlled trials in healthy adults and adults at high risk of CVD. A Mediterranean dietary pattern was defined as comprising at least two of the following components: (1) high monounsaturated/saturated fat ratio, (2) low to moderate red wine consumption, (3) high consumption of legumes, (4) high consumption of grains and cereals, (5) high consumption of fruits and vegetables, (6) low consumption of meat and meat products and increased consumption of fish, and (7) moderate consumption of milk and dairy products. The comparison group received either no intervention or minimal intervention. Outcomes included clinical events and CVD risk factors.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and contacted chief investigators to request additional relevant information.\ud \ud Main results: We included 11 trials (15 papers) (52,044 participants randomised). Trials were heterogeneous in the participants recruited, in the number of dietary components and follow-up periods. Seven trials described the intervention as a Mediterranean diet. Clinical events were reported in only one trial (Women's Health Initiative 48,835 postmenopausal women, intervention not described as a Mediterranean diet but increased fruit and vegetable and cereal intake) where no statistically significant effects of the intervention were seen on fatal and non-fatal endpoints at eight years. Small reductions in total cholesterol (-0.16 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to -0.06; random-effects model) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (-0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.01) were seen with the intervention. Subgroup analyses revealed statistically significant greater reductions in total cholesterol in those trials describing the intervention as a Mediterranean diet (-0.23 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.2) compared with control (-0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.01). Heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses for other outcomes. Reductions in blood pressure were seen in three of five trials reporting this outcome. None of the trials reported adverse events.\ud \ud Authors' conclusions: The limited evidence to date suggests some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors. More comprehensive interventions describing themselves as the Mediterranean diet may produce more beneficial effects on lipid levels than those interventions with fewer dietary components. More trials are needed to examine the impact of heterogeneity of both participants and the intervention on outcomes.

Background: There is increasing evidence that both green and black tea are beneficial for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. \ud \ud Objectives: To determine the effects of green and black tea on the primary prevention of CVD. \ud \ud Search methods: We searched the following databases on 12 October 2012 without language restrictions: CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID) and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). We also searched trial registers, screened reference lists and contacted authors for additional information where necessary. \ud \ud Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least three months involving healthy adults or those at high risk of CVD. Trials investigated the intake of green tea, black tea or tea extracts. The comparison group was no intervention, placebo or minimal intervention. The outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events and major CVD risk factors. Any trials involving multifactorial lifestyle interventions or focusing on weight loss were excluded to avoid confounding. \ud \ud Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Trials of green tea were analysed separately from trials of black tea. \ud \ud Main results: We identified 11 RCTs with a total of 821 participants, two trials awaiting classification and one ongoing trial. Seven trials examined a green tea intervention and four examined a black tea intervention. Dosage and form of both green and black tea differed between trials. The ongoing trial is examining the effects of green tea powder capsules. \ud \ud No studies reported cardiovascular events. \ud \ud Black tea was found to produce statistically significant reductions in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -0.43 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to -0.31) and blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP): MD -1.85 mmHg, 95% CI -3.21 to -0.48. Diastolic blood pressure (DBP): MD -1.27 mmHg, 95% CI -3.06 to 0.53) over six months, stable to sensitivity analysis, but only a small number of trials contributed to each analysis and studies were at risk of bias. \ud \ud Green tea was also found to produce statistically significant reductions in total cholesterol (MD -0.62 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.77 to - 0.46), LDL cholesterol (MD -0.64 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.52) and blood pressure (SBP: MD -3.18 mmHg, 95% CI -5.25 to - 1.11; DBP: MD -3.42, 95% CI -4.54 to -2.30), but only a small number of studies contributed to each analysis, and results were not stable to sensitivity analysis. When both tea types were analysed together they showed favourable effects on LDL cholesterol (MD - 0.48 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.35) and blood pressure (SBP: MD -2.25 mmHg, 95% CI -3.39 to -1.11; DBP: MD -2.81 mmHg, 95% CI -3.77 to -1.86). Adverse events were measured in five trials and included a diagnosis of prostate cancer, hospitalisation for influenza, appendicitis and retinal detachment but these are unlikely to be directly attributable to the intervention. \ud \ud Authors' conclusions: There are very few long-term studies to date examining green or black tea for the primary prevention of CVD. The limited evidence suggests that tea has favourable effects on CVD risk factors, but due to the small number of trials contributing to each analysis the results should be treated with some caution and further high quality trials with longer-term follow-up are needed to confirm this.