1.
Impact of α-Linolenic Acid, the Vegetable ω-3 Fatty Acid, on Cardiovascular Disease and Cognition.
Sala-Vila, A, Fleming, J, Kris-Etherton, P, Ros, E
Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.). 2022;13(5):1584-1602
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
α-Linolenic acid (ALA) is an omega-3 fatty acid found in seeds and nuts such as flaxseeds, chia seeds, and walnuts and in oils such as canola oil, soybean oil, flaxseed oil and walnut oil. It has been shown to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease. This meta-analysis examined the results of various studies, including epidemiologic studies, randomized controlled trials, and systematic reviews, to evaluate the beneficial effects of ALA in improving cognitive function and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. The included studies showed a correlation between ALA intake and a decreased risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease, possibly due to ALA's anti-inflammatory properties, as well as its ability to reduce total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure. The analysis also found that ALA intake may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes and cognitive impairment. Healthcare professionals can leverage the findings of this analysis to educate individuals about the benefits of dietary ALA in improving cardiovascular and cognitive outcomes. However, further studies are necessary to establish definitive conclusions and determine therapeutic dosage.
Abstract
Given the evidence of the health benefits of plant-based diets and long-chain n-3 (ω-3) fatty acids, there is keen interest in better understanding the role of α-linolenic acid (ALA), a plant-derived n-3 fatty acid, on cardiometabolic diseases and cognition. There is increasing evidence for ALA largely based on its major food sources (i.e., walnuts and flaxseed); however, this lags behind our understanding of long-chain n-3 fatty acids. Meta-analyses of observational studies have shown that increasing dietary ALA is associated with a 10% lower risk of total cardiovascular disease and a 20% reduced risk of fatal coronary heart disease. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [AlphaOmega trial, Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea (PREDIMED) trial, and Lyon Diet Heart Study] all showed benefits of diets high in ALA on cardiovascular-related outcomes, but the AlphaOmega trial, designed to specifically evaluate ALA effects, only showed a trend for benefit. RCTs have shown that dietary ALA reduced total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure, and epidemiologic studies and some trials also have shown an anti-inflammatory effect of ALA, which collectively account for, in part, the cardiovascular benefits of ALA. A meta-analysis reported a trend toward diabetes risk reduction with both dietary and biomarker ALA. For metabolic syndrome and obesity, the evidence for ALA benefits is inconclusive. The role of ALA in cognition is in the early stages but shows promising evidence of counteracting cognitive impairment. Much has been learned about the health benefits of ALA and with additional research we will be better positioned to make strong evidence-based dietary recommendations for the reduction of many chronic diseases.
2.
Coenzyme Q10 for heart failure.
Al Saadi, T, Assaf, Y, Farwati, M, Turkmani, K, Al-Mouakeh, A, Shebli, B, Khoja, M, Essali, A, Madmani, ME
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2021;(2):CD008684
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
As per the definition given by the NHS, heart failure happens when the heart fails to pump blood around the body due to stiffness or weakness of the heart muscle. Coenzyme Q10 reduces oxidative stress and toxic effects in the body by acting as a fat-soluble antioxidant nutrient. Due to these beneficial effects, CoQ10 may effectively reduce damage to cardiac cells and disruption to cellular signalling. CoQ10 is also a cell membrane stabiliser, and previous studies have shown a correlation between the severity of heart failure and CoQ10 deficiency. In addition, dietary absorption of CoQ10 is relatively slow and ineffective; therefore, supplementation is effective and safe with no side effects. This review included eleven randomised controlled studies to compare the beneficial effects of Coenzyme Q10 for the treatment of people with heart disease. This review showed that Coenzyme Q10 might reduce all-cause mortality and hospitalisation due to heart failure. In addition, CoQ10 may stabilise myocardial calcium‐dependent ion channels and encourage adenosine‐5'‐triphosphate (ATP) synthesis. However, the effectiveness of CoQ10 in lowering the risk of myocardial infarction or stroke, left ventricular ejection fraction and exercise capacity is inconclusive. Healthcare professionals can use this study's results to understand the potential beneficial effects of CoQ10 supplementation on maintaining heart health. However, due to the high heterogeneity in the current research, further robust long-term studies are required to evaluate the therapeutic value of Coenzyme Q10 in managing heart disease.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Coenzyme Q10, or ubiquinone, is a non-prescription nutritional supplement. It is a fat-soluble molecule that acts as an electron carrier in mitochondria, and as a coenzyme for mitochondrial enzymes. Coenzyme Q10 deficiency may be associated with a multitude of diseases, including heart failure. The severity of heart failure correlates with the severity of coenzyme Q10 deficiency. Emerging data suggest that the harmful effects of reactive oxygen species are increased in people with heart failure, and coenzyme Q10 may help to reduce these toxic effects because of its antioxidant activity. Coenzyme Q10 may also have a role in stabilising myocardial calcium-dependent ion channels, and in preventing the consumption of metabolites essential for adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP) synthesis. Coenzyme Q10, although not a primary recommended treatment, could be beneficial to people with heart failure. Several randomised controlled trials have compared coenzyme Q10 to other therapeutic modalities, but no systematic review of existing randomised trials was conducted prior to the original version of this Cochrane Review, in 2014. OBJECTIVES To review the safety and efficacy of coenzyme Q10 in heart failure. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, and AMED on 16 October 2020; ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 July 2020, and the ISRCTN Registry on 11 November 2019. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials of either parallel or cross-over design that assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of coenzyme Q10 in people with heart failure. When we identified cross-over studies, we considered data only from the first phase. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods, assessed study risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR); for continuous data, the mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate data were available, we conducted meta-analysis. When meta-analysis was not possible, we wrote a narrative synthesis. We provided a PRISMA flow chart to show the flow of study selection. MAIN RESULTS We included eleven studies, with 1573 participants, comparing coenzyme Q10 to placebo or conventional therapy (control). In the majority of the studies, sample size was relatively small. There were important differences among studies in daily coenzyme Q10 dose, follow-up period, and the measures of treatment effect. All studies had unclear, or high risk of bias, or both, in one or more bias domains. We were only able to conduct meta-analysis for some of the outcomes. None of the included trials considered quality of life, measured on a validated scale, exercise variables (exercise haemodynamics), or cost-effectiveness. Coenzyme Q10 probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality more than control (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.95; 1 study, 420 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 13.3; moderate-quality evidence). There was low-quality evidence of inconclusive results between the coenzyme Q10 and control groups for the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 9.59; 1 study, 420 participants), and stroke (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.48; 1 study, 420 participants). Coenzyme Q10 probably reduces hospitalisation related to heart failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.78; 2 studies, 1061 participants; NNTB 9.7; moderate-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence suggests that coenzyme Q10 may improve the left ventricular ejection fraction (MD 1.77, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.44; 7 studies, 650 participants), but the results are inconclusive for exercise capacity (MD 48.23, 95% CI -24.75 to 121.20; 3 studies, 91 participants); and the risk of developing adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 2 studies, 568 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence mainly due to high risk of bias and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The included studies provide moderate-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 probably reduces all-cause mortality and hospitalisation for heart failure. There is low-quality evidence of inconclusive results as to whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on the risk of myocardial infarction, or stroke. Because of very low-quality evidence, it is very uncertain whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on either left ventricular ejection fraction or exercise capacity. There is low-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 may increase the risk of adverse effects, or have little to no difference. There is currently no convincing evidence to support or refute the use of coenzyme Q10 for heart failure. Future trials are needed to confirm our findings.
3.
Acetyl-L-carnitine for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
Rolim, LC, da Silva, EM, Flumignan, RL, Abreu, MM, Dib, SA
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2019;6:CD011265
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Diabetic patients are at an increased risk of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), which affects around 50% of diabetic patients. Pain that worsens at night is characteristic of DPN. Prolonged hyperglycaemia and metabolic disturbances increase the risk of developing DPN. Acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) is an amino acid with antioxidant and neuroprotective properties. ALC is often found depleted in the peripheral nerves of patients with DPN. This meta-analysis included four randomised controlled trials to evaluate the therapeutic potential of ALC in reducing the symptoms of DPN, especially pain. The trials included different dosages of ALC ranging from 1500 mg/day to 3000 mg/day. Based on their findings, the researchers concluded that they are uncertain about the benefits of ALC for reducing pain related to DPN, neurophysiological improvements, and the safety of the supplement. Healthcare professionals must exercise caution when considering ALC as a therapeutic agent in treating DNP-related complications, even though dosages above 1500 mg/day of ALC reduced pain in DNP patients after taking the supplements for 6 to 12 months. Further robust long-term research is required as the current evidence is limited and uncertain to determine the clinical utility of ALC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a common and severe complication that affects 50% of people with diabetes. Painful DPN is reported to occur in 16% to 24% of people with diabetes. A complete and comprehensive management strategy for the prevention and treatment of DPN, whether painful or not, has not yet been defined.Research into treatment for DPN has been characterised by a series of failed clinical trials, with few noteworthy advances. Strategies that support peripheral nerve regeneration and restore neurological function in people with painful or painless DPN are needed. The amino acid acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) plays a role in the transfer of long-chain fatty acids into mitochondria for β-oxidation. ALC supplementation also induces neuroprotective and neurotrophic effects in the peripheral nervous system. Therefore, ALC supplementation targets several mechanisms relevant to potential nerve repair and regeneration, and could have clinical therapeutic potential. There is a need for a systematic review of the evidence from clinical trials. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of ALC for the treatment of DPN. SEARCH METHODS On 2 July 2018, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of ALC compared with placebo, other therapy, or no intervention in the treatment of DPN. Participants could be of any sex and age, and have type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus, of any severity, with painful or painless DPN. We accepted any definition of minimum criteria for DPN, in accordance with the Toronto Consensus. We imposed no language restriction.Pain was the primary outcome, measured as the proportion of participants with at least 30% (moderate) or 50% (substantial) decrease in pain over baseline, or as the score on a visual analogue scale (VAS) or Likert scale for pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS We included four studies with 907 participants, which were reported in three publications. Three trials studied ALC versus placebo (675 participants); in one trial the dose of ALC was 2000 mg/day, and in the other two trials, it was 1500 mg/day or 3000 mg/day. The fourth trial studied ALC 1500 mg/day versus methylcobalamin 1.5 mg/day (232 participants). The risk of bias was high in both trials of different ALC doses and low in the other two trials.No included trial measured the proportion of participants with at least moderate (30%) or substantial (50%) pain relief. ALC reduced pain more than placebo, measured on a 0- to 100-mm VAS (MD -9.16, 95% CI -16.76 to -1.57; three studies; 540 participants; P = 0.02; I² = 56%; random-effects; very low-certainty evidence; a higher score indicating more pain). At doses of 1500 mg/day or less, the VAS score after ALC treatment was little different from placebo (MD -0.05, 95% CI -10.00 to 9.89; two studies; 159 participants; P = 0.99; I² = 0%), but at doses greater than 1500 mg/day, ALC reduced pain more than placebo (MD -14.93, 95% CI -19.16 to -10.70; three studies; 381 participants; P < 0.00001; I² = 0%). This subgroup analysis should be viewed with caution as the evidence was even less certain than the overall analysis, which was already of very low certainty.Two placebo-controlled studies reported that vibration perception improved after 12 months. We graded this evidence as very low certainty, due to inconsistency and a high risk of bias, as the trial authors did not provide any numerical data. The placebo-controlled studies did not measure functional impairment and disability scores. No study used validated symptom scales. One study performed sensory testing, but the evidence was very uncertain.The fourth included study compared ALC with methylcobalamin, but did not report effects on pain. There was a reduction from baseline to 24 weeks in functional impairment and disability, based on the change in mean Neuropathy Disability Score (NDS; scale from zero to 10), but there was no important difference between the ALC group (mean score 1.66 ± 1.90) and the methylcobalamin group (mean score 1.35 ± 1.65) groups (P = 0.23; low-certainty evidence).One placebo-controlled study reported that six of 147 participants in the ALC > 1500 mg/day group (4.1%) and two of 147 participants in the placebo group (1.4%) discontinued treatment because of adverse events (headache, facial paraesthesia, and gastrointestinal disorders) (P = 0.17). The other two placebo-controlled studies reported no dropouts due to adverse events, and more pain, paraesthesia, and hyperaesthesias in the placebo group than the 3000 mg/day ALC group, but provided no numerical data. The overall certainty of adverse event evidence for the comparison of ALC versus placebo was low.The study comparing ALC with methylcobalamin reported that 34/117 participants (29.1%) experienced adverse events in the ALC group versus 33/115 (28.7%) in the methylcobalamin group (P = 0.95). Nine participants discontinued treatment due to adverse events (ALC: 4 participants, methylcobalamin: 5 participants), which were most commonly gastrointestinal symptoms. The certainty of the adverse event evidence for ALC versus methylcobalamin was low.Two studies were funded by the manufacturer of ALC and the other two studies had at least one co-author who was a consultant for an ALC manufacturer. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We are very uncertain whether ALC causes a reduction in pain after 6 to 12 months' treatment in people with DPN, when compared with placebo, as the evidence is sparse and of low certainty. Data on functional and sensory impairment and symptoms are lacking, or of very low certainty. The evidence on adverse events is too uncertain to make any judgements on safety.