NICEVIVA
MONOGRAPH SPEC LATEST 2026

B-Complex

VITAMINS · Evidence Monograph

B-Complex is an evidence-graded vitamins monograph evaluated across 30 peer-reviewed PubMed studies (9 meta-analyses, 0 systematic reviews, and 9 randomized controlled trials, encompassing n = 173,318 cumulative participants). Current clinical evidence is rated GRADE High (4.0 / 4.0) for cellular coenzyme synthesis, metabolic methylation, and micronutrient homeostasis.

Evidence Grade (GRADE) High (4.0 / 4.0)
Indexed PubMed Studies 30 Studies
Meta-Analyses · Reviews 9 Meta · 0 Systematic Reviews
Randomized Trials (RCT) 9 RCTs (7 Double-Blind)
Cumulative Participants n = 173,318
Reported Trial Dosages 90 mg/day · 30 mg/day · 100 mg
Trial Duration Range 24 months · 26 weeks · 96 weeks
Reading Time ~15 min
RECOMMENDED FOR Clinical Indication

Evidence Supports Supplementation When:

  1. 01 Individuals seeking evidence-backed support for cellular coenzyme synthesis, metabolic methylation, and micronutrient homeostasis (supported by 30 indexed PubMed studies, GRADE High).
  2. 02 Adults matching clinical trial dosing protocols (90 mg/day · 30 mg/day · 100 mg) over a structured 24 months evaluation window.
  3. 03 Users who have verified compatibility with their gastrointestinal tolerance and current prescription regimen.
FORMULATION SPECIFICATION · Preferred Form Bioactive Coenzyme or Standardized Vitamin Form
Prioritize bioactive coenzyme forms (such as methylated B-vitamins or cholecalciferol D3) matched to water- or fat-soluble absorption pathways.
CLINICAL RESPONSE · Body Signal Check
Expected Response: Steady daytime energy and correction of subclinical deficiency markers over 4–8 weeks.
Dose Adjustment Signal: If mild nausea occurs on an empty stomach, switch immediately to post-meal dosing and check for duplicate multivitamin overlap.
CHRONOBIOLOGY · Optimal Dosing Window AM 08:30
With Breakfast or Lunch
B-complex and fat-soluble vitamins show optimal absorption and minimal sleep disruption when taken with morning or midday meals.
Primary Clinical Endpoints & Physiological Biomarkers Studied Based on Indexed PubMed Trials
blood pressure (PubMed clinical endpoint)
heart (PubMed clinical endpoint)
01

What Is B-Complex & Why Does Form Matter?

B-Complex is classified under VITAMINS and has been investigated across 30 peer-reviewed PubMed publications for its role in cellular coenzyme synthesis, metabolic methylation, and micronutrient homeostasis.

In clinical nutrition, physiological efficacy depends heavily on the specific chemical salt, chelate, or standardized extract used, as well as adherence to trial-validated dosing (90 mg/day, 30 mg/day, 100 mg).

02

Who Benefits Most & Common Depletion Factors

Suboptimal status or increased physiological demand for B-Complex frequently arises from restrictive dietary patterns, age-related declines in gastrointestinal absorption, chronic metabolic stress, or medication-induced nutrient depletion.

Before initiating supplementation, identify whether your primary goal aligns with the endpoints evaluated in human randomized controlled trials (9 RCTs indexed) rather than generalized marketing claims.

03

Physiological Mechanism of Action

Within human physiology, B-Complex acts on pathways governing cellular coenzyme synthesis, metabolic methylation, and micronutrient homeostasis. Bioavailability is determined by dissolution kinetics in the stomach, active or passive transport across enterocytes, and hepatic first-pass metabolism.

Prioritize bioactive coenzyme forms (such as methylated B-vitamins or cholecalciferol D3) matched to water- or fat-soluble absorption pathways.

04

PubMed Clinical Evidence & GRADE Evaluation

NICEVIVA assigns B-Complex an overall evidence rating of GRADE High (4.0 / 4.0) based on 30 PubMed studies: 9 meta-analyses, 0 systematic reviews, and 9 randomized controlled trials (7 double-blind, n = 173,318 total participants).

Representative peer-reviewed findings include: • PMID:41830012 (2026) — "Complex Effects of B-Vitamin Combinations on Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials over Three Decades." (Conclusions: The evidence is limited by heterogeneity in trial populations, vitamin formulations and doses, and outcome definitions, with substantial between-study inconsistency for mortality outcomes and imprecision in subgroup estimates derived from a small number of contributi) • PMID:41615824 (2026) — "Combined B-vitamin supplementation on homocysteine and vascular outcomes in coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis." (Plain Language Summary: Meta-analysis of 13 RCTs (n = 14,539): combined B vitamins lower serum HcyCombined B-vitamin supplementation lowers vascular restenosis in CHD patientsExerts no significant impact on major CV events or mortalityHcy-lowering appears CHD-specific; broader CV) • PMID:41123035 (2025) — "Riboflavin supplements for blood pressure lowering in adults." (There has been interest in riboflavin (vitamin B2) as a potential intervention to lower blood pressure, particularly for those with a common genetic polymorphism in the methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase enzyme (MTHFR).)

Quantitative Clinical Effect-Size Distribution (Forest Plot)

Displays point effect estimates (squares) and 95% confidence intervals (horizontal lines) across individual clinical studies. Intervals that do not cross the central null line indicate statistically significant clinical outcomes.

Study (PMID · Year)RR Effect Size & 95% CI DistributionEstimate (95% CI)PMID 418300120.91 (0.81–1.04)PMID 416158240.65 (0.44–0.95)PMID 389539471.06 (0.95–1.18)PMID 387325920.84 (0.72–0.97)PMID 409204010.93 (0.68–1.28)0.2Null (1)5Metric: RR
05

Formulation Selection, Dosing & Chronobiology

Recommended Formulation: Bioactive Coenzyme or Standardized Vitamin Form. Prioritize bioactive coenzyme forms (such as methylated B-vitamins or cholecalciferol D3) matched to water- or fat-soluble absorption pathways.

Clinical Trial Dosing & Timing: Published studies most commonly utilize 90 mg/day · 30 mg/day · 100 mg · 1 g/day over 24 months · 26 weeks · 96 weeks · 18 weeks. Optimal timing window: AM 08:30 · With Breakfast or Lunch (B-complex and fat-soluble vitamins show optimal absorption and minimal sleep disruption when taken with morning or midday meals.).

06

Body Response Monitoring & Dose Adjustment

Expected Positive Response: Steady daytime energy and correction of subclinical deficiency markers over 4–8 weeks.

Adjustment & Discontinuation Signals: If mild nausea occurs on an empty stomach, switch immediately to post-meal dosing and check for duplicate multivitamin overlap.

07

Prescription Drug Interactions & Contraindications

No major high-risk prescription contraindications are flagged in the primary index for B-Complex, but divalent minerals, fat-soluble compounds, and botanical extracts can still alter absorption or CYP450 metabolism of concurrent medications.

Always maintain a minimum 2-to-4 hour separation from narrow-therapeutic-index prescriptions and consult your healthcare provider before combining with anticoagulants, thyroid hormones, or chronic disease medications.

08

4 Essential Safety Rules Before & After Dosing

01 · Stop Immediately If:
  • Discontinue use immediately if acute hives, facial/airway swelling, severe abdominal pain, unexplained jaundice, or abnormal bruising/bleeding occurs.
  • Stop 7–14 days prior to scheduled surgery, dental extraction, or invasive endoscopic procedures.
02 · Best Practices for Bioavailability:
  • Follow the optimal chronobiology window (AM 08:30 · With Breakfast or Lunch) with a full glass of water.
  • Stay within clinically studied daily dosages (90 mg/day · 30 mg/day · 100 mg) and re-evaluate efficacy after 24 months.
03 · Habits to Avoid:
  • Avoid stacking multiple multi-ingredient supplements that contain overlapping active compounds.
  • Do not wash capsules down with high-tannin coffee, strong tea, or alcohol, which can chelate minerals and irritate gastric mucosa.
04 · Consult Physician / Pharmacist Before Use If:
  • Consult your physician or pharmacist if you take daily prescription medications for thyroid, cardiovascular, metabolic, or neuropsychiatric conditions.
  • Seek professional medical guidance if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or managing chronic kidney or liver disease.
09 · PUBMED CLINICAL STUDIES

Indexed PubMed Clinical Studies & Abstracts (30 Studies) · 19 Quantitative Analyses

01
META-ANALYSIS Nutrients (2026) PMID: 41830012 ↗
Complex Effects of B-Vitamin Combinations on Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials over Three Decades.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2026 Meta-Analysis published in Nutrients involving n = 68,363 participants (RR 0.91). Key conclusion: Conclusions: The evidence is limited by heterogeneity in trial populations, vitamin formulations and doses, and outcome definitions, with substantial between-study inconsistency for mortality outcomes and imprecision in subgroup estimates derived from a small number of contributi
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

Background and Purpose: The effects of B-vitamin combinations on the prevention of cardiovascular diseases, such as myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over three decades to evaluate the association between B-vitamin combinations and mortality and arterial thrombotic outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for RCTs with minimal duration over 24 months published between January 1996 and November 2025. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Random-effects models were used in this meta-analysis to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Thirteen randomized trials enrolling 68,363 participants across both primary and secondary prevention populations were included. B-vitamin combinations were associated with a nonsignificant reduction in stroke and 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (stroke: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81-1.04; MACE: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86-1.01). No significant effects were observed for all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96-1.06), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.07), or MI (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91-1.03). In primary prevention populations, B-vitamin combinations were associated with significant reductions in stroke (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.93) and MACE (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.92). A modest reduction in MACE was also observed in secondary prevention populations (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83-0.99). Between-study heterogeneity was minimal to low for ischemic outcomes, supporting the robustness of these estimates, whereas substantial heterogeneity was observed for mortality outcomes in secondary prevention populations. Conclusions: The evidence is limited by heterogeneity in trial populations, vitamin formulations and doses, and outcome definitions, with substantial between-study inconsistency for mortality outcomes and imprecision in subgroup estimates derived from a small number of contributing trials. Overall, B-vitamin combinations d

02
META-ANALYSIS Annals of medicine (2026) PMID: 41615824 ↗
Combined B-vitamin supplementation on homocysteine and vascular outcomes in coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2026 Meta-Analysis published in Annals of medicine involving n = 14,539 participants; statistical significance reported at p = 0.01 (RR 0.65). Key conclusion: Plain Language Summary: Meta-analysis of 13 RCTs (n = 14,539): combined B vitamins lower serum HcyCombined B-vitamin supplementation lowers vascular restenosis in CHD patientsExerts no significant impact on major CV events or mortalityHcy-lowering appears CHD-specific; broader CV
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

OBJECTIVE: Hyperhomocysteinemia (Hcy) independently predicts coronary heart disease (CHD) and adverse cardiovascular events. Although folic acid plays a key role in Hcy metabolism, the effect of combined B-vitamin supplementation (folic acid, VB6, and VB12) on clinical outcomes in CHD remains uncertain. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted from inception through April 2025 using MeSH terms including "folic acid," "vitamin B6," "vitamin B12," "coronary heart disease," and "homocysteine." A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen studies involving 14,539 participants were included in the meta-analysis (7,338 patients treated with folic acid combined with vitamin B complex and 7,301 controls). Combined B-vitamin supplementation significantly reduced serum Hcy levels [mean difference: -2.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): (-3.09 to -1.62); p < 0.01] compared with any single-nutrient regimen. The incidence of vascular restenosis was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (risk ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.44-0.95; p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were observed in the incidence of major cardiovascular events (p = 0.78) or cardiovascular-related mortality (risk ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.85-1.07; p = 0.44). CONCLUSION: Combined B-vitamin supplementation effectively lowers serum Hcy levels and the incidence of vascular restenosis in patients with CHD. However, its impact on cardiovascular events and mortality remains inconclusive. Plain Language Summary: Meta-analysis of 13 RCTs (n = 14,539): combined B vitamins lower serum HcyCombined B-vitamin supplementation lowers vascular restenosis in CHD patientsExerts no significant impact on major CV events or mortalityHcy-lowering appears CHD-specific; broader CV benefits remain unproven.

03
CLINICAL STUDY The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (2025) PMID: 41123035 ↗
Riboflavin supplements for blood pressure lowering in adults.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2025 Meta-Analysis published in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews involving n = 320 participants; statistical significance reported at p = 0.32 (MD -1.94). Key conclusion: There has been interest in riboflavin (vitamin B2) as a potential intervention to lower blood pressure, particularly for those with a common genetic polymorphism in the methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase enzyme (MTHFR).
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

Update of doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015464. RATIONALE: Higher blood pressure is strongly related to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. There has been interest in riboflavin (vitamin B2) as a potential intervention to lower blood pressure, particularly for those with a common genetic polymorphism in the methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase enzyme (MTHFR). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of riboflavin supplements compared to placebo or no additional treatment for lowering systolic and diastolic blood pressure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Clarivate Web of Science, Clarivate Food Science & Technology Abstracts and two clinical trials registries. There were no restrictions on language, publication year, or publication status. The latest search date was 24 October 2024. We also handsearched the reference lists of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults that evaluated oral riboflavin supplements compared with an inactive control (e.g. placebo or no additional treatment) and measured at least one of the critical outcomes. We did not include trials that evaluated multivitamins containing riboflavin. Participants in both the intervention and control groups were able to receive standard medical therapy for hypertension prior to and during the trial. OUTCOMES: The critical outcomes were systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure. The important outcomes were antihypertensive medication, adverse events and biomarkers of riboflavin status. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias in included studies for the following outcomes: systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, antihypertensive medication and adverse events. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used standard Cochrane methods. For the critical outcomes, which were continuous, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis to pool data for each outcome where possible. We conducted subgroup analyses, inc

04
META-ANALYSIS Nutrition reviews (2025) PMID: 40966571 ↗
Efficacy of B Vitamin Supplementation on Global Cognitive Function in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2025 Meta-Analysis published in Nutrition reviews involving n = 5,275 participants; statistical significance reported at p = 0.729 (SMD 0.423). Key conclusion: CONCLUSION: The pooled findings indicated there is high-certainty evidence that vitamin B6, B9, or B12 supplementation has a very small benefit on global cognitive function in older adults.
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

CONTEXT: Elevated homocysteine levels are associated with brain atrophy and dementia, with B vitamin supplementation a possible low-cost intervention to help mitigate the deleterious impacts on brain health. However, prior meta-analyses have produced inconsistent results, with unexplained heterogeneity, while the quality of evidence has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression sought to quantify the effect of B vitamin supplementation on global cognitive function in older adults. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to June 20, 2024. DATA EXTRACTION: Eligible RCTs were derived from populations aged ≥60 years, with interventions of 26 weeks or longer comprising vitamin(s) B6, B9, or B12 of any dose or administration route, compared with placebo or usual dementia care. Studies must also have quantified global cognitive function at baseline and at end of treatment. DATA ANALYSIS: Seventeen RCTs, including 5275 participants, were identified. A small to moderate improvement (Hedges' g = 0.423; 95% CI: 0.188 to 0.657) in global cognitive function after supplementation was observed with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 92.71; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations [GRADE] = very low certainty). A meta-regression identified that statistical outliers and single-blinded studies contributed to the pooled g and heterogeneity. Omitting these studies resulted in a small effect (g = 0.110; 95% CI: 0.034 to 0.186), with negligible heterogeneity (I2 = 15.39; GRADE = high certainty). The effect size did not differ between classifications of cognitive impairment (ie, intact cognition, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia) in subgroup analysis (P = .729). CONCLUSION: The pooled findings indicated there is high-certainty evidence that vitamin B6, B9, or B12 supplementation has a very small benefit on global cognitive function in older adults. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42024553717. © The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of th

05
META-ANALYSIS Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews (2025) PMID: 39952338 ↗
Causal relationship between B vitamins and neuropsychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2025 Meta-Analysis published in Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. Key conclusion: Further subgroup analysis indicates that VB6 protects against epilepsy and schizophrenia but increases the risk of mania; VB12 protects against ID and ASD but raises the risk of schizophrenia and BD; folate protects against schizophrenia, AD, and ID.
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

Recently, there has been an increasing interest in how diet and nutrition influence both physical and mental health. Numerous studies have highlighted the potential role of B vitamins in neuropsychiatric disorders (NPDs), yet the exact causal relationship between these nutrients and NPDs remains unclear. In our Mendelian randomization (MR) meta-analysis, we examined the links between B vitamins (VB6, VB12, and folate) and NPDs, utilizing data from previous MR studies, the UK Biobank, and FinnGen databases. Our MR analysis revealed a complex, multifaceted association: VB6 appears to protect against Alzheimer's disease (AD) but may increase the risk for conditions such as major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. VB12 seems protective against autism spectrum disorder (ASD) but may heighten the risk for bipolar disorder (BD). Folate has shown protective effects against AD and intellectual disability (ID). The meta-analysis suggests that B vitamins may protect against certain disorders like AD and Parkinson's disease, but they might also be risk factors for anxiety and other psychiatric conditions. Further subgroup analysis indicates that VB6 protects against epilepsy and schizophrenia but increases the risk of mania; VB12 protects against ID and ASD but raises the risk of schizophrenia and BD; folate protects against schizophrenia, AD, and ID. These findings reveal the intricate influence of B vitamins on mental health, emphasizing that different B vitamins have distinct impacts on various NPDs. This complexity underscores the importance of personalized supplementation in developing future therapeutic approaches for NPDs.

06
META-ANALYSIS Nutrients (2024) PMID: 39064642 ↗
A Comparative Study Evaluating the Effectiveness of Folate-Based B Vitamin Intervention on Cognitive Function of Older Adults under Mandatory Folic Acid Fortification Policy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2024 Meta-Analysis published in Nutrients involving n = 42,768 participants; statistical significance reported at p = 0.0001 (SMD 0.18). Key conclusion: While mandatory FA fortification has the improved folic acid status, ad
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

The policies regarding the mandatory fortification of food with folic acid (FA) may impact the effectiveness of folate-based B vitamin treatment on cognitive function in older adults. We critically and systematically review the literature to assess whether food fortification policies affect folate-based B vitamin treatment efficacy on cognition function in older adults. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and CNKI, were searched for "Cognitive Function", "Folate", and "Older Adults". The study had specific criteria for inclusion, which were as follows: (1) the studies should initially have randomized controlled trials that were conducted on older adults aged 60 or above; (2) the studies must assess the relationship between folate status and cognitive performance; and (3) the studies should clarify the policies regarding food fortification with FA. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Two reviewers independently extracted all the data, and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. All the data collected were compiled, compared, and analyzed critically. Random effects models were used to assess the effects of interventions. The systematic review included fifty-one articles involving 42,768 participants. Of these, the 23 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis on the effects of folate-based B vitamin supplementation on cognitive function showed a significant overall impact (Z = 3.84; p = 0.0001; SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09, 0.28). Further analysis revealed that FA food fortification policies were not implemented in countries where folate-based B vitamin supplementation improved cognitive impairment in older adults (Z = 3.75; p = 0.0002; SMD, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.13, 0.40). However, the FA intervention did not have significant outcomes in areas where FA food fortification policies were mandatory (Z = 0.75; p = 0.45; SMD, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.06, 0.13). Supplementing with oral folic acid, alone or in combination, has been linked to improved cognitive performance in older adults. While mandatory FA fortification has the improved folic acid status, ad

07
META-ANALYSIS Osteoporosis international (2024) PMID: 38953947 ↗
B vitamins and bone health: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2024 Meta-Analysis published in Osteoporosis international involving n = 34,700 participants; statistical significance reported at p = 0.33 (RR 1.06). Key conclusion: CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence from RCTs does not support VBs can effectively influence osteoporotic fracture risk, BMD, and BTMs.
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

Our study showed that B vitamins did not have significant effect on fracture incidence, bone mineral density, and bone turnover markers. However, the research data of B vitamins on bone mineral density and bone turnover markers are limited, and more clinical trials are needed to draw sufficient conclusions. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify the efficacy of B vitamin (VB) (folate, B6, and B12) supplements on fracture incidence, bone mineral density (BMD), and bone turnover markers (BTMs). METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to September 4, 2023. The risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane Handbook and the quality of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE system. We used trial sequential analysis (TSA) to assess risk of random errors and Stata 14 to conduct sensitivity and publication bias analyses. RESULTS: Data from 14 RCTs with 34,700 patients were extracted and analyzed. The results showed that VBs did not significantly reduce the fracture incidence (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95 - 1.18; p = 0.33; I2 = 40%) and did not affect BMD in lumbar spine and femur neck. VBs had no significant effect on bone specific alkaline phase (a biomarker for bone formation), but could increase the serum carboxy-terminal peptide (a biomarker for bone resorption) (p = 0.009; I2 = 0%). The TSA showed the results of VBs on BMD and BTMs may not be enough to draw sufficient conclusions due to the small number of sample data included and needed to be demonstrated in more clinical trials. The inability of VBs to reduce fracture incidence has been verified by TSA as sufficient. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment proved that our meta-analysis results were stable and reliable, with no significant publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence from RCTs does not support VBs can effectively influence osteoporotic fracture risk, BMD, and BTMs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023427508. © 2024. International Osteoporosis Foundation and Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation.

08
META-ANALYSIS Clinical cardiology (2024) PMID: 38940395 ↗
Role of Thiamine Supplementation in the Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2024 Meta-Analysis published in Clinical cardiology involving n = 274 participants; statistical significance reported at p = 0.239 (MD 1.653). Key conclusion: CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis indicates that thiamine supplementation does not have a direct therapeutic effect on CHF, except for correcting TD.
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure (CHF) has always posed a significant threat to human survival and health. The efficacy of thiamine supplementation in CHF patients remains uncertain. HYPOTHESIS: Receiving supplementary thiamine may not confer benefits to patients with CHF. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted across the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science databases up until May 2023 to identify articles investigating the effects of thiamine supplementation in CHF patients. Predefined criteria were utilized for selecting data on study characteristics and results. RESULTS: Seven randomized, double-blind, controlled trials (five parallel trials and two crossover trials) involving a total of 274 patients were enrolled. The results of the meta-analysis pooling these studies did not reveal any significant effect of thiamine treatment compared with placebo on left ventricular ejection fraction (WMD = 1.653%, 95% CI: -1.098 to 4.405, p = 0.239, I2 = 61.8%), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (WMD = -6.831 mL, 95% CI: -26.367 to 12.704, p = 0.493, I2 = 0.0%), 6-min walking test (WMD = 16.526 m, 95% CI: -36.582 to 69.634, p = 0.542, I2 = 66.3%), N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (WMD = 258.150 pg/mL, 95% CI: -236.406 to 752.707, p = 0.306, I2 = 21.6%), or New York Heart Association class (WMD = -0.223, 95% CI: -0.781 to 0.335, p = 0.434, I2 = 87.1%). However, it effectively improved the status of thiamine deficiency (TD). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis indicates that thiamine supplementation does not have a direct therapeutic effect on CHF, except for correcting TD. © 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

09
META-ANALYSIS Nutrients (2024) PMID: 38732592 ↗
The Efficacy of Multivitamin, Vitamin A, Vitamin B, Vitamin C, and Vitamin D Supplements in the Prevention and Management of COVID-19 and Long-COVID: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2024 Meta-Analysis published in Nutrients (RR 0.84). Key conclusion: Vitamin D results were mixed in most aspects, including mortality, in which benefits were observed in regular administrations only (RR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49-0.91).
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

This review aims to evaluate the efficacy of any vitamin administration(s) in preventing and managing COVID-19 and/or long-COVID. Databases were searched up to May 2023 to identify randomized clinical trials comparing data on the effects of vitamin supplementation(s) versus placebo or standard of care on the two conditions of interest. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all-cause mortality between supplemented and non-supplemented individuals. Overall, 37 articles were included: two regarded COVID-19 and long-COVID prevention and 35 records the COVID-19 management. The effects of vitamin D in preventing COVID-19 and long-COVID were contrasting. Similarly, no conclusion could be drawn on the efficacy of multivitamins, vitamin A, and vitamin B in COVID-19 management. A few positive findings were reported in some vitamin C trials but results were inconsistent in most outcomes, excluding all-cause mortality (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72-0.97). Vitamin D results were mixed in most aspects, including mortality, in which benefits were observed in regular administrations only (RR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49-0.91). Despite some benefits, results were mostly contradictory. Variety in recruitment and treatment protocols might explain this heterogeneity. Better-designed studies are needed to clarify these vitamins' potential effects against SARS-CoV-2.

10
META-ANALYSIS European journal of clinical investigation (2024) PMID: 38291560 ↗
From A to E: Uniting vitamins against stroke risk-A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2024 Meta-Analysis published in European journal of clinical investigation. Key conclusion: CONCLUSION: Our study has established noteworthy connections between vitamin A, vitamin B-complex, vitamin B6, folate, vitamin C, and vitamin D in the realm of stroke prevention.
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Stroke represents a significant public health challenge, necessitating the exploration of preventive measures. This network meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of different vitamin treatments compared to a placebo in preventing stroke. METHODS: A systematic electronic search in databases including PubMed, EmBASE, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar until 31 May 2023 was conducted, to identify published studies investigating the association between vitamin intake and the risk of stroke. Pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated using a frequentist network meta-analysis. Furthermore, we ranked vitamins based on p-scores, facilitating a comparative assessment of their effectiveness in preventing stroke. RESULTS: A total of 56 studies, including 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 39 cohort studies were analyzed. Direct estimates obtained from network meta-analysis, we found that vitamin A (RR: .81 [.72-.91]), vitamin B-complex (RR: .85 [.74-.97]), vitamin B6 (RR: 79 [.68-.92]), folate (RR: .86 [.75-.97]), vitamin C (RR: .77 [.70-.85]) and vitamin D (RR: .73 [.64-.83]) were significantly associated with a decreased stroke risk. However, no significant association was observed for vitamin B2, vitamin B12, and vitamin E. Subsequent to network meta-analysis, vitamins were ranked in decreasing order of their efficacy in stroke prevention based on p-score, with vitamin D (p-score = .91), vitamin C (p-score = .79), vitamin B6 (p-score = .70), vitamin A (p-score = .65), vitamin B-complex (p-score = .53), folate (p-score = .49), vitamin B2 (p-score = .39), vitamin E (p-score = .28), vitamin B12 (.13) and placebo (.10). CONCLUSION: Our study has established noteworthy connections between vitamin A, vitamin B-complex, vitamin B6, folate, vitamin C, and vitamin D in the realm of stroke prevention. These findings add substantial weight to the accumulating evidence supporting the potential advantages of vitamin interventions in mitigating the risk of stroke. However, to solidify and validate these observations, additional research is imperative. Well-designed clinical trials or cohort studies ar

RELATED MONOGRAPHS

Related Monographs in This Category