Cargando…

Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the USA and UK governments, respectively, with the ambition of reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality by reducing dietary fat intake. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis by the present authors, examining t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harcombe, Zoë, Baker, Julien S, DiNicolantonio, James J, Grace, Fergal, Davies, Bruce
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985840/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27547428
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2016-000409
_version_ 1782448126558208000
author Harcombe, Zoë
Baker, Julien S
DiNicolantonio, James J
Grace, Fergal
Davies, Bruce
author_facet Harcombe, Zoë
Baker, Julien S
DiNicolantonio, James J
Grace, Fergal
Davies, Bruce
author_sort Harcombe, Zoë
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the USA and UK governments, respectively, with the ambition of reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality by reducing dietary fat intake. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis by the present authors, examining the randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence available to the dietary committees during those time periods, found no support for the recommendations to restrict dietary fat. The present investigation extends our work by re-examining the totality of RCT evidence relating to the current dietary fat guidelines. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs currently available, which examined the relationship between dietary fat, serum cholesterol and the development of CHD, was undertaken. RESULTS: The systematic review included 62 421 participants in 10 dietary trials: 7 secondary prevention studies, 1 primary prevention and 2 combined. The death rates for all-cause mortality were 6.45% and 6.06% in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The risk ratio (RR) from meta-analysis was 0.991 (95% CI 0.935 to 1.051). The death rates for CHD mortality were 2.16% and 1.80% in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The RR was 0.976 (95% CI 0.878 to 1.084). Mean serum cholesterol levels decreased in all intervention groups and all but one control group. The reductions in mean serum cholesterol levels were significantly greater in the intervention groups; this did not result in significant differences in CHD or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The current available evidence found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions. RCT evidence currently available does not support the current dietary fat guidelines. The evidence per se lacks generalisability for population-wide guidelines.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4985840
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49858402016-08-19 Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis Harcombe, Zoë Baker, Julien S DiNicolantonio, James J Grace, Fergal Davies, Bruce Open Heart Meta-Analysis OBJECTIVES: National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the USA and UK governments, respectively, with the ambition of reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality by reducing dietary fat intake. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis by the present authors, examining the randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence available to the dietary committees during those time periods, found no support for the recommendations to restrict dietary fat. The present investigation extends our work by re-examining the totality of RCT evidence relating to the current dietary fat guidelines. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs currently available, which examined the relationship between dietary fat, serum cholesterol and the development of CHD, was undertaken. RESULTS: The systematic review included 62 421 participants in 10 dietary trials: 7 secondary prevention studies, 1 primary prevention and 2 combined. The death rates for all-cause mortality were 6.45% and 6.06% in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The risk ratio (RR) from meta-analysis was 0.991 (95% CI 0.935 to 1.051). The death rates for CHD mortality were 2.16% and 1.80% in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The RR was 0.976 (95% CI 0.878 to 1.084). Mean serum cholesterol levels decreased in all intervention groups and all but one control group. The reductions in mean serum cholesterol levels were significantly greater in the intervention groups; this did not result in significant differences in CHD or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The current available evidence found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions. RCT evidence currently available does not support the current dietary fat guidelines. The evidence per se lacks generalisability for population-wide guidelines. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4985840/ /pubmed/27547428 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2016-000409 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Meta-Analysis
Harcombe, Zoë
Baker, Julien S
DiNicolantonio, James J
Grace, Fergal
Davies, Bruce
Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Meta-Analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985840/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27547428
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2016-000409
work_keys_str_mv AT harcombezoe evidencefromrandomisedcontrolledtrialsdoesnotsupportcurrentdietaryfatguidelinesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bakerjuliens evidencefromrandomisedcontrolledtrialsdoesnotsupportcurrentdietaryfatguidelinesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dinicolantoniojamesj evidencefromrandomisedcontrolledtrialsdoesnotsupportcurrentdietaryfatguidelinesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gracefergal evidencefromrandomisedcontrolledtrialsdoesnotsupportcurrentdietaryfatguidelinesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT daviesbruce evidencefromrandomisedcontrolledtrialsdoesnotsupportcurrentdietaryfatguidelinesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis