The potential impact of policies and structural interventions in reducing cardiovascular disease and mortality: a systematic review of simulation-based studies.

Background: The aim of the study was to investigate the potential effect of different structural interventions for preventing cardiovascular disease. Methods: Medline and EMBASE were searched for peer-reviewed simulation-based studies of structural interventions for prevention of cardiovascular disease. We performed a systematic narrative synthesis. Results: A total of 54 studies met the inclusion criteria. Diet, nutrition, tobacco and alcohol control and other programmes are among the policy simulation models explored. Food tax and subsidies, healthy food and lifestyles policies, palm oil tax, processed meat tax, reduction in ultra-processed foods, supplementary nutrition assistance programmes, stricter food policy and subsidised community-supported agriculture were among the diet and nutrition initiatives. Initiatives to reduce tobacco and alcohol use included a smoking ban, a national tobacco control initiative and a tax on alcohol. Others included the NHS Health Check, WHO 25 × 25 and air quality management policy. Future work and limitations: There is significant heterogeneity in simulation models, making comparisons of output data impossible. While policy interventions typically include a variety of strategies, none of the models considered possible interrelationships between multiple policies or potential interactions. Research that investigates dose-response interactions between numerous modifications as well as longer-term clinical outcomes can help us better understand the potential impact of policy-level interventions. Conclusions: The reviewed studies underscore the potential of structural interventions in addressing cardiovascular diseases. Notably, interventions in areas such as diet, tobacco, and alcohol control demonstrate a prospective decrease in cardiovascular incidents. However, to realize the full potential of such interventions, there is a pressing need for models that consider the interplay and cumulative impacts of multiple policies. Rigorous research into holistic and interconnected interventions will pave the way for more effective policy strategies in the future. Study registration: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019154836. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 17/148/05.

This study aimed to explore the potential effects of various policy changes on the prevention of heart disease. By searching two large medical databases, we identified studies that employed computer models to estimate the impact of these policies on heart disease rates. In total, 54 studies matched our criteria. These studies considered a diverse range of policy interventions. Some delved into food and nutrition, investigating aspects like unhealthy food taxes, healthy food subsidies, stricter food regulations, and nutritional assistance programs. Others examined the impact of policies targeting tobacco and alcohol, encompassing smoking bans, nationwide tobacco control measures, and alcohol taxation. Further policies assessed included routine health checkups, global health goals, and measures to enhance air quality. One significant challenge lies in the varied approaches and models each study employed, making direct comparisons difficult. Furthermore, there's a gap in understanding how these policies might influence one another, as the studies did not consider potential interactions between them. While these policies show promise in the computer models, more comprehensive research is needed to fully appreciate their combined and long-term effects on heart health in real-world scenarios. As of now, we recognize the potential of these interventions, but further studies will determine their true impact on reducing heart disease rates.

Association between vitamin D supplementation or serum vitamin D level and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 including clinical course, morbidity and mortality outcomes? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systemically review and critically appraise published studies of the association between vitamin D supplementation or serum vitamin D level and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19, including clinical course, morbidity and mortality outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedRxiv and BioRxiv preprint databases. COVID-19 databases of the WHO, Cochrane, CEBM Oxford and Bern University up to 10 June 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that assessed vitamin D supplementation and/or low serum vitamin D in patients acutely ill with, or at risk of, severe betacoronavirus infection (SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2). DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black Quality Assessment Checklist. RESULTS: Searches elicited 449 papers, 59 studies were eligible full-text assessment and 4 met the eligibility criteria of this review. The four studies were narratively synthesised and included (1) a cross-sectional study (n=107) suggesting an inverse association between serum vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2; (2) a retrospective cohort study (348 598 participants, 449 cases) in which univariable analysis showed that vitamin D protects against COVID-19; (3) an ecological country level study demonstrating a negative correlation between vitamin D and COVID-19 case numbers and mortality; and (4) a case-control survey (n=1486) showing cases with confirmed/probable COVID-19 reported lower vitamin D supplementation. All studies were at high/unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There is no robust evidence of a negative association between vitamin D and COVID-19. No relevant randomised controlled trials were identified and there is no robust peer-reviewed published evidence of association between vitamin D levels and severity of symptoms or mortality due to COVID-19. Guideline producers should acknowledge that benefits of vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 are as yet unproven despite increasing interest.

Determining optimal strategies for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review, cost-effectiveness review and network meta-analysis protocol.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent improvements in the burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the UK, deaths from CVD are relatively high compared with other high-income countries. An estimated 7 million people in the UK are living with CVD, and the healthcare cost is approximately £11 billion annually. In more than 90% of cases, the risk of a first heart attack is thought to be related to modifiable risk factors including smoking, poor diet, lipidemia, high blood pressure, inactivity, obesity and excess alcohol consumption. The aim of the study is to synthesise evidence for the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different interventions for the primary prevention of CVD. METHODS: We will systematically search databases (for example, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library) and the reference lists of previous systematic reviews for randomised controlled trials that assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of any form of intervention aimed at adult populations for the primary prevention of CVD, including but not limited to lipid lowering medications, blood pressure lowering medications, antiplatelet agents, nutritional supplements, dietary interventions, health promotion programmes, physical activity interventions or structural and policy interventions. Interventions may or may not be targeted at high-risk groups. Publications from any year will be considered for inclusion. The primary outcome will be all cause mortality. Secondary outcomes will be cardiovascular diseases related mortality, major cardiovascular events, coronary heart disease, incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years gained. If data permits, we will use network meta-analysis to compare and rank effectiveness of different interventions, and test effect modification of intervention effectiveness using subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses. DISCUSSION: The results will be important for policymakers when making decisions between multiple possible alternative strategies to prevent CVD. Compared to results from existing multiple separate pairwise meta-analyses, this overarching synthesis of all relevant work will enhance decision-making. The findings will be crucial to inform evidence-based priorities and guidelines for policies and planning prevention strategies of CVD. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019123940.

Omega-6 fats for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

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, I2 = 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/m2, 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.

Omega-6 fats for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

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, I2 = 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/m2, 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.

Vitamin C supplementation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of vitamin C supplementation as a single supplement for the primary prevention of CVD. SEARCH METHODS: 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. SELECTION CRITERIA: 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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: 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.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.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.Four studies did not state sources of funding, two studies declared non-commercial funding and two studies declared both commercial and non-commercial funding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Omega 6 fatty acids for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Omega 6 plays a vital role in many physiological functions but there is controversy concerning its effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. There is conflicting evidence whether increasing or decreasing omega 6 intake results in beneficial effects. OBJECTIVES: The two primary objectives of this Cochrane review were to determine the effectiveness of:1. Increasing omega 6 (Linoleic acid (LA), Gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), Dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA), Arachidonic acid (AA), or any combination) intake in place of saturated or monounsaturated fats or carbohydrates for the primary prevention of CVD.2. Decreasing omega 6 (LA, GLA, DGLA, AA, or any combination) intake in place of carbohydrates or protein (or both) for the primary prevention of CVD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases up to 23 September 2014: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the Cochrane Library (Issue 8 of 12, 2014); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to September week 2, 2014); EMBASE Classic and EMBASE (Ovid) (1947 to September 2014); Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters) (1990 to September 2014); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment Database, and Health Economics Evaluations Database on the Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 4, 2014). We searched trial registers and reference lists of reviews for further studies. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions stating an intention to increase or decrease omega 6 fatty acids, lasting at least six months, and including healthy adults or adults at high risk of CVD. The comparison group was given no advice, no supplementation, a placebo, a control diet, or continued with their usual diet. The outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal end points) and CVD risk factors (changes in blood pressure, changes in blood lipids, occurrence of type 2 diabetes). We excluded trials involving exercise or multifactorial interventions to avoid confounding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs (five papers) that randomised 660 participants. No ongoing trials were identified. All included trials had at least one domain with an unclear risk of bias. There were no RCTs of omega 6 intake reporting CVD clinical events. Three trials investigated the effect of increased omega 6 intake on lipid levels (total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL-cholesterol), and high density lipoprotein (HDL-cholesterol)), two trials reported triglycerides, and two trials reported blood pressure (diastolic and systolic blood pressure). Two trials, one with two relevant intervention arms, investigated the effect of decreased omega 6 intake on blood pressure parameters and lipid levels (total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, and HDL-cholesterol) and one trial reported triglycerides. Our analyses found no statistically significant effects of either increased or decreased omega 6 intake on CVD risk factors.Two studies were supported by funding from the UK Food Standards Agency and Medical Research Council. One study was supported by Lipid Nutrition, a commercial company in the Netherlands and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. The final study was supported by grants from the Finnish Food Research Foundation, Finnish Heart Research Foundation, Aarne and Aili Turnen Foundation, and the Research Council for Health, Academy of Finland. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no studies examining the effects of either increased or decreased omega 6 on our primary outcome CVD clinical endpoints and insufficient evidence to show an effect of increased or decreased omega 6 intake on CVD risk factors such as blood lipids and blood pressure. Very few trials were identified with a relatively small number of participants randomised. There is a need for larger well conducted RCTs assessing cardiovascular events as well as cardiovascular risk factors.