April 20, 2005 – The authors of a recently published clinical trial meta-analysis in the British Medical Journal (BMJ)1 claim that their results do not support a conclusion to the effectiveness of multivitamin and mineral supplements for preventing infections in the elderly. Their conclusion sparked a lively debate.
Indeed, a number of studies published in recent years have indicated that taking multivitamin and mineral supplements may help prevent the increased susceptibility to infections that occurs with aging. Based on these studies, many physicians have recommended that their elderly patients take such supplements, a use that is growing in popularity in developed countries where the senior population is doubling every 30 years.
Yet the authors of the BMJ study, who analyzed the results of eight clinical trials to measure the effects of multivitamin and mineral supplements on the incidence of infections in older people, conclude that the scientific evidence for this effect are weak and contradictory, and that they do not justify advising the elderly to take them.
Following the publication of the study, the BMJ received several comments that questioned the integrity of the authors and the value of their results. At least one of the studies analyzed is said to be biased and has been retracted in the past. The BMJ associate editor even felt the need to publish an article pointing out that the results of the recent meta-analysis may need to be reconsidered.2 and the authors themselves had to promise to review their work for a future “review” to be released at an unspecified date.3.
Note that the authors recognize that supplements would be effective in reducing the total duration of infections, even if they would not prevent them directly. A story to follow.
Pierre Lefrançois – PasseportSanté.net
According to Caducée.net
1. El-Kadiki A, Sutton AJ. Role of multivitamins and mineral supplements in preventing infections in elderly people: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMJ. 2005 Mar 31; [Epub ahead of print]
2. Analysis may be flawed, Abbasi K, assistant editor, BMJ. [Consulté le 18 avril 2005]. bmj.com
3. Author’s response to Deputy Editor of the BMJ’s posting, El-Kadiki A, Sutton AJ. [Consulté le 18 avril 2005]. bmj.com
