Effects of salt substitutes on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) recently reported blood pressure-mediated benefits of a potassium-enriched salt substitute on cardiovascular outcomes and death. This study assessed the effects of salt substitutes on a breadth of outcomes to quantify the consistency of the findings and understand the likely generalisability of the SSaSS results. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to 31 August 2021. Parallel group, step-wedge or cluster randomised controlled trials reporting the effect of salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes were included. Meta-analyses and metaregressions were used to define the consistency of findings across trials, geographies and patient groups. RESULTS: There were 21 trials and 31 949 participants included, with 19 reporting effects on blood pressure and 5 reporting effects on clinical outcomes. Overall reduction of systolic blood pressure (SBP) was -4.61 mm Hg (95% CI -6.07 to -3.14) and of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was -1.61 mm Hg (95% CI -2.42 to -0.79). Reductions in blood pressure appeared to be consistent across geographical regions and population subgroups defined by age, sex, history of hypertension, body mass index, baseline blood pressure, baseline 24-hour urinary sodium and baseline 24-hour urinary potassium (all p homogeneity >0.05). Metaregression showed that each 10% lower proportion of sodium choloride in the salt substitute was associated with a -1.53 mm Hg (95% CI -3.02 to -0.03, p=0.045) greater reduction in SBP and a -0.95 mm Hg (95% CI -1.78 to -0.12, p=0.025) greater reduction in DBP. There were clear protective effects of salt substitute on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0. 81 to 0.94) and cardiovascular events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: The beneficial effects of salt substitutes on blood pressure across geographies and populations were consistent. Blood pressure-mediated protective effects on clinical outcomes are likely to be generalisable across population subgroups and to countries worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020161077.

Nutrient profiling and food prices: what is the cost of choosing healthier products?

BACKGROUND: The Health Star Rating (HSR) is a front-of-pack label designed to help Australian consumers identify healthier packaged foods. Price is an important determinant of food choice and yet no previous studies have examined the relationship between HSR and price. In the present study, we investigated whether (i) healthier packaged food products, as determined by HSR, are more expensive than less healthy alternatives and (ii) products displaying the HSR are more expensive than similar products that do not. METHODS: Prices of three packaged foods categories (breakfast cereals, cereal-based bars and fruit juices) and nutrient data (to calculate HSR) were obtained from shopping receipts of approximately 1600 Australians between June 2014 and September 2016. Associations between HSR and price [per energy ($/100 kJ) and per unit ($/100 g)] for products of comparable package sizes were assessed by linear regression and the results are presented as differences in average price over the theoretical maximum range of HSR from 0.5 to 5 stars. RESULTS: The HSR of products was not consistently related to price. Small positive associations were observed for juice ($0.08/100 mL; P = 0.03) and for cereal-based bars ($0.04/100 kJ; P = 0.02). No other associations between HSR and price were observed (P ≥ 0.23). Products that displayed the HSR were no more expensive on average than products that received a similar HSR but did not display the HSR (P ≥ 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the findings of the present study suggest that healthier packaged food products were not consistently more expensive than less healthy products and also that price is unlikely to be a barrier for consumers to use the HSR to select healthier packaged foods.

Sesame supplementation does not improve cardiovascular disease risk markers in overweight men and women.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pre-clinical studies suggest that sesame and its lignans induce beneficial changes in risk factors related to cardiovascular disease and increase the bioavailability of mammalian lignans. However, only very few intervention trials have investigated the potential bioactivities of sesame in humans. We aimed to investigate the effects of sesame supplementation in humans on blood lipids, blood pressure, systemic oxidative stress, inflammatory biomarkers and mammalian lignan metabolism. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over intervention trial at a university research centre. Overweight or obese men and women (n=33) consumed 25g/d of sesame ( approximately 50mg/d of sesame lignan) and an iso-caloric placebo matched for macronutrient composition for 5 wks each. Each intervention period was preceded by a 4-wk washout period. Blood lipid profiles, day time ambulatory blood pressure, oxidative stress and inflammatory biomarkers and urinary mammalian lignans were measured before and after each intervention. Results are presented as the effect of sesame supplementation relative to placebo. Urinary excretion of the mammalian lignans, enterolactone and enterodiol, increased by approximately 8-fold (P<0.001). Blood lipids and blood pressure were not altered. In addition, markers of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha) and lipid peroxidation (F(2)-isoprostanes) were not affected. CONCLUSION: Supplementation with 25g/d of sesame can significantly increase the exposure to mammalian lignans. However, this did not cause any improvement in markers of cardiovascular disease risk in overweight or obese men and women.