Cardiovascular effects of calcium supplementation.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to assess the cardiovascular safety of calcium supplements, particularly their association with increased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke.
Results Summary
The meta-analysis found a 27-31% increased risk of myocardial infarction and a 12-20% increased risk of stroke with calcium supplements. Food sources of calcium were suggested as a preferable alternative due to similar bone benefits without adverse cardiovascular effects.
Population
Older women and patients with renal impairment.
Effective Dosage
Not specified
Duration
Not specified
Interactions
Co-administration of vitamin D with calcium did not lessen adverse cardiovascular effects.
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
calcium supplements | increase | cardiovascular disease | normal older women and in patients with renal impairment | - | increase the risk | #1 |
calcium supplements | increase | myocardial infarction | - | 27-31% | increase in risk | #2 |
calcium supplements | increase | stroke | - | 12-20% | increase in risk | #3 |
co-administration of vitamin D with calcium | no change | these adverse effects | - | - | does not lessen | #4 |
calcium supplements | decrease | fracture risk | - | small | produce small reductions | #5 |
calcium supplements | increase | cardiovascular risk | - | small | small increase | #6 |
Food sources of calcium | increase | bone density | - | similar | appear to produce similar benefits | #7 |
Food sources of calcium | no change | adverse cardiovascular effects | - | - | have not been associated with | #8 |
Trials in normal older women and in patients with renal impairment suggest that calcium supplements increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. To further assess their safety, we recently conducted a meta-analysis of trials of calcium supplements, and found a 27-31% increase in risk of myocardial infarction and a 12-20% increase in risk of stroke. These findings are robust because they are based on pre-specified analyses of randomized, placebo-controlled trials and show consistent risk across the trials. The fact that cardiovascular events were not primary endpoints of any of these studies will introduce noise but not bias into the data. A recent re-analysis of the Women's Health Initiative suggests that co-administration of vitamin D with calcium does not lessen these adverse effects. The increased cardiovascular risk with calcium supplements is consistent with epidemiological data relating higher circulating calcium concentrations to cardiovascular disease in normal populations. There are several possible pathophysiological mechanisms for these effects, including effects on vascular calcification, on the function of vascular cells, and on blood coagulation. Calcium-sensing receptors might mediate some of these effects. Because calcium supplements produce small reductions in fracture risk and a small increase in cardiovascular risk, there may be no net benefit from their use. Food sources of calcium appear to produce similar benefits on bone density, although their effects on fracture are unclear. Since food sources have not been associated with adverse cardiovascular effects, they may be preferable. Available evidence suggests that other osteoporosis treatments are still effective without calcium co-administration.