4.7 Article

Vitamin B supplementation, homocysteine levels, and the risk of cerebrovascular disease A meta-analysis

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 81, 期 15, 页码 1298-1307

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a823cc

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To perform a meta-analysis on the effect of lowering homocysteine levels via B vitamin supplementation on cerebrovascular disease risk. Methods: Using clinical trials published before August 2012 to assess stroke events, we used relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) to measure the association between B vitamin supplementation and endpoint events using a fixed-effects model and chi(2) tests. We included 14 randomized controlled trials with 54,913 participants in this analysis. Results: We observed a reduction in overall stroke events resulting from reduction in homocysteine levels following B vitamin supplementation (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.86-1.00; p = 0.04) but not in subgroups divided according to primary or secondary prevention measures, ischemic vs hemorrhagic stroke, or occurrence of fatal stroke. There were beneficial effects in reducing stroke events in subgroups with >= 3 years follow-up time, and without background of cereal folate fortification or chronic kidney disease (CKD). Some trials that included CKD patients reported decreased glomerular filtration rate with B vitamin supplementation. We conducted detailed subgroup analyses for cyanocobalamin (vitamin B-12) but did not find a significant benefit regarding intervention dose of vitamin B-12 or baseline blood B-12 concentration. Stratified analysis for blood pressure and baseline participant medication use showed benefits with >130 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and lower antiplatelet drug use in reducing stroke risk. Conclusions: B vitamin supplementation for homocysteine reduction significantly reduced stroke events, especially in subjects with certain characteristics who received appropriate intervention measures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据