Search

Objectives: This systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised trials evaluated the preventive effects of vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention on clinically important outcomes, in people of any age., Methods: We searched different electronic databases and other resources for randomised clinical trials that had compared vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention (last search 16 April 2024). We used Cochrane methodology. We used the random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs), with 95% CIs. We analysed individually and cluster randomised trials separately. Our primary outcomes were mortality, adverse events and quality of life. We assessed risks of bias in the trials and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence., Results: We included 120 randomised trials (1 671 672 participants); 105 trials allocated individuals and 15 allocated clusters. 92 trials included children (78 individually; 14 cluster randomised) and 28 adults (27 individually; 1 cluster randomised). 14/105 individually randomised trials (13%) and none of the cluster randomised trials were at overall low risk of bias. Vitamin A did not reduce mortality in individually randomised trials (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I ² =32%; p=0.19; 105 trials; moderate certainty), and this effect was not affected by the risk of bias. In individually randomised trials, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in children (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; I ² =24%; p=0.28; 78 trials, 178 094 participants) nor in adults (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.13; I ² =24%; p=0.27; 27 trials, 61 880 participants). Vitamin A reduced mortality in the cluster randomised trials (0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93; I ² =66%; p=0.0008; 15 trials, 14 in children and 1 in adults; 364 343 participants; very low certainty). No trial reported serious adverse events or quality of life. Vitamin A slightly increased bulging fontanelle of neonates and infants. We are uncertain whether vitamin A influences blindness under the conditions examined., Conclusions: Based on moderate certainty of evidence, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in the individually randomised trials. Very low certainty evidence obtained from cluster randomised trials suggested a beneficial effect of vitamin A on mortality. If preventive vitamin A programmes are to be continued, supporting evidence should come from randomised trials allocating individuals and assessing patient-meaningful outcomes., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018104347., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The evidence on whether vitamin D supplementation is effective in decreasing cancers is contradictory., Objectives: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to February 2014. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials., Selection Criteria: We included randomised trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults who were healthy or were recruited among the general population, or diagnosed with a specific disease. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D₂ (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol))., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors extracted data independently. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). We considered risk of bias in order to assess the risk of systematic errors. We conducted trial sequential analyses to assess the risk of random errors., Main Results: Eighteen randomised trials with 50,623 participants provided data for the analyses. All trials came from high-income countries. Most of the trials had a high risk of bias, mainly for-profit bias. Most trials included elderly community-dwelling women (aged 47 to 97 years). Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of six years. Fourteen trials tested vitamin D₃, one trial tested vitamin D₂, and three trials tested calcitriol supplementation. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1927/25,275 (7.6%) recipients of vitamin D versus 1943/25,348 (7.7%) recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 18 trials; 50,623 participants; moderate quality evidence according to the GRADE instrument). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) of the 18 vitamin D trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. We did not observe substantial differences in the effect of vitamin D on cancer in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared to trials at high risk of bias; of trials with no risk of for-profit bias compared to trials with risk of for-profit bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared to trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D levels below 20 ng/mL at entry compared to trials including participants with vitamin D levels of 20 ng/mL or more at entry; or of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared to trials without calcium. Vitamin D decreased all-cause mortality (1854/24,846 (7.5%) versus 2007/25,020 (8.0%); RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98); P = 0.009; I² = 0%; 15 trials; 49,866 participants; moderate quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1918/24,908 (7.7%) recipients of vitamin D₃ versus 1933/24,983 (7.7%) in recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 14 trials; 49,891 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA of the vitamin D₃ trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. Vitamin D₃ decreased cancer mortality (558/22,286 (2.5%) versus 634/22,206 (2.8%); RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 4 trials; 44,492 participants; low quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Vitamin D₃ combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 3 trials; 42,753 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA, however, indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. We did not find any data on health-related quality of life or health economics in the randomised trials included in this review., Authors' Conclusions: There is currently no firm evidence that vitamin D supplementation decreases or increases cancer occurrence in predominantly elderly community-dwelling women. Vitamin D₃ supplementation decreased cancer mortality and vitamin D supplementation decreased all-cause mortality, but these estimates are at risk of type I errors due to the fact that too few participants were examined, and to risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants. Combined vitamin D₃ and calcium supplements increased nephrolithiasis, whereas it remains unclear from the included trials whether vitamin D₃, calcium, or both were responsible for this effect. We need more trials on vitamin D supplementation, assessing the benefits and harms among younger participants, men, and people with low vitamin D status, and assessing longer duration of treatments as well as higher dosages of vitamin D. Follow-up of all participants is necessary to reduce attrition bias.

Purpose of Review: Oxidative damage to cells and tissues is considered involved in the aging process and in the development of chronic diseases in humans, including cancer and cardiovascular diseases, the leading causes of death in high-income countries. This has stimulated interest in the preventive potential of antioxidant supplements. Today, more than one half of adults in high-income countries ingest antioxidant supplements hoping to improve their health, oppose unhealthy behaviors, and counteract the ravages of aging., Recent Findings: Older observational studies and some randomized clinical trials with high risks of systematic errors ('bias') have suggested that antioxidant supplements may improve health and prolong life. A number of randomized clinical trials with adequate methodologies observed neutral or negative results of antioxidant supplements. Recently completed large randomized clinical trials with low risks of bias and systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials taking systematic errors ('bias') and risks of random errors ('play of chance') into account have shown that antioxidant supplements do not seem to prevent cancer, cardiovascular diseases, or death. Even more, beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality. Some recent large observational studies now support these findings. According to recent dietary guidelines, there is no evidence to support the use of antioxidant supplements in the primary prevention of chronic diseases or mortality., Summary: Antioxidant supplements do not possess preventive effects and may be harmful with unwanted consequences to our health, especially in well-nourished populations. The optimal source of antioxidants seems to come from our diet, not from antioxidant supplements in pills or tablets.

Background and Aims: Evidence shows that antioxidant supplements may increase mortality. Our aims were to assess whether different doses of beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E affect mortality in primary and secondary prevention randomized clinical trials with low risk of bias., Methods: The present study is based on our 2012 Cochrane systematic review analyzing beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidant supplements in adults. Using random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression analyses, and trial sequential analyses, we examined the association between beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E, and mortality according to their daily doses and doses below and above the recommended daily allowances (RDA)., Results: We included 53 randomized trials with low risk of bias (241,883 participants, aged 18 to 103 years, 44.6% women) assessing beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E. Meta-regression analysis showed that the dose of vitamin A was significantly positively associated with all-cause mortality. Beta-carotene in a dose above 9.6 mg significantly increased mortality (relative risk (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.09, I(2) = 13%). Vitamin A in a dose above the RDA (> 800 µg) did not significantly influence mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.19, I(2) = 53%). Vitamin E in a dose above the RDA (> 15 mg) significantly increased mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05, I(2) = 0%). Doses below the RDAs did not affect mortality, but data were sparse., Conclusions: Beta-carotene and vitamin E in doses higher than the RDA seem to significantly increase mortality, whereas we lack information on vitamin A. Dose of vitamin A was significantly associated with increased mortality in meta-regression. We lack information on doses below the RDA., Background: All essential compounds to stay healthy cannot be synthesized in our body. Therefore, these compounds must be taken through our diet or obtained in other ways [1]. Oxidative stress has been suggested to cause a variety of diseases [2]. Therefore, it is speculated that antioxidant supplements could have a potential role in preventing diseases and death. Despite the fact that a normal diet in high-income countries may provide sufficient amounts of antioxidants [3,4], more than one third of adults regularly take antioxidant supplements [5,6].

Background: Several liver diseases have been associated with oxidative stress. Accordingly, antioxidants have been suggested as potential therapeutics for various liver diseases. The evidence supporting these suggestions is equivocal., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of antioxidant supplements for patients with liver diseases., Search Strategy: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to January 2011. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials., Selection Criteria: We considered for inclusion randomised trials that compared antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, C, E, and selenium) versus placebo or no intervention for autoimmune liver diseases, viral hepatitis, alcoholic liver disease, and cirrhosis (any aetiology)., Data Collection and Analysis: Four authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcome measures were all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, liver-related morbidity, biochemical indices at maximum follow-up in the individual trials as well as adverse events, quality-of-life measures, and cost-effectiveness. For patients with hepatitis B or C we also considered end of treatment and sustained virological response. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. Results were presented as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Main Results: Twenty randomised trials with 1225 participants were included. The trials assessed beta-carotene (3 trials), vitamin A (2 trials), vitamin C (9 trials), vitamin E (15 trials), and selenium (8 trials). The majority of the trials had high risk of bias and showed heterogeneity. Overall, the assessed antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.19, I(2) = 0%), or liver-related mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.05, I(2) = 37%). Stratification according to the type of liver disease did not affect noticeably the results. Antioxidant supplements significantly increased activity of gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (MD 24.21 IU/l, 95% CI 6.67 to 41.75, I(2) = 0%)., Authors' Conclusions: We found no evidence to support or refute antioxidant supplements in patients with liver disease. Antioxidant supplements may increase liver enzyme activity.

Background: The evidence on whether antioxidant supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers is contradictory., Aim: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidant supplements in preventing gastrointestinal cancers., Methods: Using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology, we reviewed the randomized trials comparing antioxidant supplements with placebo or no intervention on the occurrence of gastrointestinal cancers. We searched electronic databases and reference lists until October, 2007. Our outcome measures were gastrointestinal cancers, overall mortality and adverse events. Outcomes were reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on random-effects and fixed-effect models meta-analyses., Results: We identified 20 randomized trials (211,818 participants) assessing beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium. The trial quality was generally high. The antioxidant supplements were without a significant effect on the occurrence of gastrointestinal cancers (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.06, I(2) = 54.0%). The heterogeneity seemed to be explained by bias risk (low-bias risk trials RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96-1.13 compared to high-bias risk trials RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.80, test of interaction P < 0.0005) and type of antioxidant supplement (beta-carotene potentially increasing and selenium potentially decreasing cancer risk). Antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on mortality in a random-effects model meta-analysis (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97-1.07, I(2) = 53.5%) but significantly increased mortality in a fixed-effect model meta-analysis (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.07)., Conclusions: We could not find evidence that the studied antioxidant supplements prevented gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality.

Background: Oxidative stress may cause gastrointestinal cancers. The evidence on whether antioxidant supplements are effective in preventing gastrointestinal cancers is contradictory., Objectives: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidant supplements in preventing gastrointestinal cancers., Search Strategy: We identified trials through the trials registers of the four Cochrane Review Groups on gastrointestinal diseases, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and The Chinese Biomedical Database from inception to October 2007. We scanned reference lists and contacted pharmaceutical companies., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing antioxidant supplements to placebo/no intervention examining occurrence of gastrointestinal cancers., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors (GB and DN) independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcome measures were gastrointestinal cancers, overall mortality, and adverse effects. Outcomes were reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analysis. Meta-regression assessed the effect of covariates across the trials., Main Results: We identified 20 randomised trials (211,818 participants), assessing beta-carotene (12 trials), vitamin A (4 trials), vitamin C (8 trials), vitamin E (10 trials), and selenium (9 trials). Trials quality was generally high. Heterogeneity was low to moderate. Antioxidant supplements were without significant effects on gastrointestinal cancers (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.06). However, there was significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 54.0%, P = 0.003). The heterogeneity may have been explained by bias risk (low-bias risk trials RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13 compared to high-bias risk trials RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80; test of interaction P < 0.0005), and type of antioxidant supplement (beta-carotene potentially increasing and selenium potentially decreasing cancer risk). The antioxidant supplements had no significant effects on mortality in a random-effects model meta-analysis (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.07, I(2) = 53.5%), but significantly increased mortality in a fixed-effect model meta-analysis (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.07). Beta-carotene in combination with vitamin A (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.23) and vitamin E (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11) significantly increased mortality. Increased yellowing of the skin and belching were non-serious adverse effects of beta-carotene. In five trials (four with high risk of bias), selenium seemed to show significant beneficial effect on gastrointestinal cancer occurrence (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.75, I(2) = 0%)., Authors' Conclusions: We could not find convincing evidence that antioxidant supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, antioxidant supplements seem to increase overall mortality. The potential cancer preventive effect of selenium should be tested in adequately conducted randomised trials.

Context: Antioxidant supplements are used for prevention of several diseases., Objective: To assess the effect of antioxidant supplements on mortality in randomized primary and secondary prevention trials. DATA SOURCES AND TRIAL SELECTION: We searched electronic databases and bibliographies published by October 2005. All randomized trials involving adults comparing beta carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C (ascorbic acid), vitamin E, and selenium either singly or combined vs placebo or vs no intervention were included in our analysis. Randomization, blinding, and follow-up were considered markers of bias in the included trials. The effect of antioxidant supplements on all-cause mortality was analyzed with random-effects meta-analyses and reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regression was used to assess the effect of covariates across the trials., Data Extraction: We included 68 randomized trials with 232 606 participants (385 publications)., Data Synthesis: When all low- and high-bias risk trials of antioxidant supplements were pooled together there was no significant effect on mortality (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.06). Multivariate meta-regression analyses showed that low-bias risk trials (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04[corrected]-1.29) and selenium (RR, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.9995) were significantly associated with mortality. In 47 low-bias trials with 180 938 participants, the antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). In low-bias risk trials, after exclusion of selenium trials, beta carotene (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), vitamin A (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24), and vitamin E (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07), singly or combined, significantly increased mortality. Vitamin C and selenium had no significant effect on mortality., Conclusions: Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.

Background: Oxidative stress may cause gastrointestinal cancers. The evidence on whether antioxidant supplements are effective in preventing gastrointestinal cancers is contradictory., Objectives: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidant supplements in preventing gastrointestinal cancers., Search Strategy: We identified trials through the trials registers of the four Cochrane Review Groups on gastrointestinal diseases, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and SCI-EXPANDED from inception to February 2003, and The Chinese Biomedical Database (March 2003). We scanned reference lists and contacted pharmaceutical companies., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing antioxidant supplements to placebo/no intervention examining the incidence of gastrointestinal cancers., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. The outcome measures were incidence of gastrointestinal cancers, overall mortality, and adverse events. Outcomes were reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on fixed and random effects meta-analyses., Main Results: We identified 14 randomised trials (170,525 participants), assessing beta-carotene (9 trials), vitamin A (4 trials), vitamin C (4 trials), vitamin E (5 trials), and selenium (6 trials). Trial quality was generally high. Heterogeneity was low to moderate. Neither the fixed effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04) nor random effects meta-analyses (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05) showed significant effects of supplementation with antioxidants on the incidences of gastrointestinal cancers. Among the seven high-quality trials reporting on mortality (131,727 participants), the fixed effect (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10) unlike the random effects meta-analysis (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.15) showed that antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality. Two low-quality trials (32,302 participants) found no significant effect of antioxidant supplementation on mortality. The difference between the mortality estimates in high- and low-quality trials was significant by test of interaction (z = 2.10, P = 0.04). Beta-carotene and vitamin A (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.45) and beta-carotene and vitamin E (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.20) significantly increased mortality, while beta-carotene alone only tended to do so (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11). Increased yellowing of the skin and belching were non-serious adverse effects of beta-carotene. In four trials (three with unclear/inadequate methodology), selenium showed significant beneficial effect on gastrointestinal cancer incidences., Reviewers' Conclusions: We could not find evidence that antioxidant supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality. The potential cancer preventive effect of selenium should be studied in adequately conducted randomised trials.