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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |