Vitamins for Cardiovascular Diseases: Is the Expense Justified?

Despite the knowledge that a well-balanced diet provides most of the nutritional requirements, the use of supplemental vitamins is widespread among adults in the United States. Evidence from large randomized controlled trials over the last 2 decades does not support vitamin supplementation for the reduction of cardiovascular risk factors or clinical outcomes. Many of the vitamins used in common practice likely are safe when consumed in small doses, but long-term consumption of megadoses is not only expensive but has the potential to cause adverse effects. Therefore, a need exists to revisit this issue, reminding the public and healthcare providers about the data supporting the use of vitamins for cardiovascular disease, and the potential for harm and the expense associated with their unnecessary use. In this review, we highlight the scientific evidence from randomized controlled studies regarding the efficacy and safety of vitamin supplementation for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases and outcomes. We also draw attention to issues related to widespread and indiscriminate use of vitamin supplements and the need to educate the public to curtail unnecessary consumption and expense by limiting their use based on strong scientific evidence.

Chelation therapy in cardiovascular disease: an update.

INTRODUCTION: The off-label use of chelation therapy (disodium edetate or EDTA) for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is widespread, despite the lack of convincing evidence for efficacy or approval from the Food and Drug Administration. After the publication of results from the National Institute of Health-sponsored Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT), a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients after myocardial infarction (MI), there is a renewed interest in clarifying the role of this treatment modality for patients with coronary artery disease. Areas covered: This narrative review highlights the evidence from observational studies and RCT in assessing the effect of chelation therapy on cardiovascular outcomes and potential for adverse effects or harm. Expert commentary: Although encouraging results were reported in TACT, the evidence is insufficient to recommend the routine use of chelation therapy even in the post-MI diabetic subgroup, which appeared to benefit. The ongoing TACT2 trial may clarify its use in post-MI diabetic patients. Unsubstantiated claims of chelation therapy as an effective treatment of atherosclerosis should be avoided and patients made aware of the inadequate evidence for efficacy and potential adverse effects, especially the harm that can occur if used as a substitute for proven therapies.