Mediterranean‐style diet for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed)
The Seven Countries study in the 1960s showed that populations in the Mediterranean region experienced lower coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality probably as a result of different dietary patterns. Later observational studies have confirmed the benefits of adherence to a Mediterranean dietary pattern on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors but clinical trial evidence is more limited.Objectives
To determine the effectiveness of a Mediterranean‐style diet for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD.Search methods
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 9); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 25 September 2018); Embase (Ovid, 1980 to 2018 week 39); Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters, 1900 to 26 September 2018); DARE Issue 2 of 4, 2015 (Cochrane Library); HTA Issue 4 of 4, 2016 (Cochrane Library); NHS EED Issue 2 of 4, 2015 (Cochrane Library). We searched trial registers and applied no language restrictions.Selection criteria
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in healthy adults and adults at high risk of CVD (primary prevention) and those with established CVD (secondary prevention). Both of the following key components were required to reach our definition of a Mediterranean‐style diet: high monounsaturated/saturated fat ratio (use of olive oil as main cooking ingredient and/or consumption of other traditional foods high in monounsaturated fats such as tree nuts) and a high intake of plant‐based foods, including fruits, vegetables and legumes. Additional components included: low to moderate red wine consumption; high consumption of whole grains and cereals; low consumption of meat and meat products and increased consumption of fish; moderate consumption of milk and dairy products. The intervention could be dietary advice, provision of relevant foods, or both. The comparison group received either no intervention, minimal intervention, usual care or another dietary intervention. Outcomes included clinical events and CVD risk factors. We included only studies with follow‐up periods of three months or more defined as the intervention period plus post intervention follow‐up.Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We conducted four main comparisons:
1. Mediterranean dietary intervention versus no intervention or minimal intervention for primary prevention;
2. Mediterranean dietary intervention versus another dietary intervention for primary prevention;
3. Mediterranean dietary intervention versus usual care for secondary prevention;
4. Mediterranean dietary intervention versus another dietary intervention for secondary prevention.Main results
In this substantive review update, 30 RCTs (49 papers) (12,461 participants randomised) and seven ongoing trials met our inclusion criteria. The majority of trials contributed to primary prevention: comparisons 1 (nine trials) and 2 (13 trials). Secondary prevention trials were included for comparison 3 (two trials) and comparison 4 (four trials plus an additional two trials that were excluded from the main analyses due to published concerns regarding the reliability of the data).
Two trials reported on adverse events where these were absent or minor (low‐ to moderate‐quality evidence). No trials reported on costs or health‐related quality of life.
The included studies for comparison 1 did not report on clinical endpoints (CVD mortality, total mortality or non‐fatal endpoints such as myocardial infarction or stroke). The PREDIMED trial (included in comparison 2) was retracted and re‐analysed following concerns regarding randomisation at two of 11 sites. Low‐quality evidence shows little or no effect of the PREDIMED (7747 randomised) intervention (advice to follow a Mediterranean diet plus supplemental extra‐virgin olive oil or tree nuts) compared to a low‐fat diet on CVD mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.32) or total mortality (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.24) over 4.8 years. There was, however, a reduction in the number of strokes with the PREDIMED intervention (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.80), a decrease from 24/1000 to 14/1000 (95% CI 11 to 19), moderate‐quality evidence). For CVD risk factors for comparison 1 there was low‐quality evidence for a possible small reduction in total cholesterol (‐0.16 mmol/L, 95% CI ‐0.32 to 0.00) and moderate‐quality evidence for a reduction in systolic (‐2.99 mmHg (95% CI ‐3.45 to ‐2.53) and diastolic blood pressure (‐2.0 mmHg, 95% CI ‐2.29 to ‐1.71), with low or very low‐quality evidence of little or no effect on LDL or HDL cholesterol or triglycerides. For comparison 2 there was moderate‐quality evidence of a possible small reduction in LDL cholesterol (‐0.15 mmol/L, 95% CI ‐0.27 to ‐0.02) and triglycerides (‐0.09 mmol/L, 95% CI ‐0.16 to ‐0.01) with moderate or low‐quality evidence of little or no effect on total or HDL cholesterol or blood pressure.
For secondary prevention, the Lyon Diet Heart Study (comparison 3) examined the effect of advice to follow a Mediterranean diet and supplemental canola margarine compared to usual care in 605 CHD patients over 46 months and there was low‐quality evidence of a reduction in adjusted estimates for CVD mortality (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.82) and total mortality (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.92) with the intervention. Only one small trial (101 participants) provided unadjusted estimates for composite clinical endpoints for comparison 4 (very low‐quality evidence of uncertain effect). For comparison 3 there was low‐quality evidence of little or no effect of a Mediterranean‐style diet on lipid levels and very low‐quality evidence for blood pressure. Similarly, for comparison 4 where only two trials contributed to the analyses there was low or very low‐quality evidence of little or no effect of the intervention on lipid levels or blood pressure.Authors' conclusions
Despite the relatively large number of studies included in this review, there is still some uncertainty regarding the effects of a Mediterranean‐style diet on clinical endpoints and CVD risk factors for both primary and secondary prevention. The quality of evidence for the modest benefits on CVD risk factors in primary prevention is low or moderate, with a small number of studies reporting minimal harms. There is a paucity of evidence for secondary prevention. The ongoing studies may provide more certainty in the future.
Karen Rees, Andrea Takeda, Nicole Martin, Leila Ellis, Dilini Wijesekara, Abhinav Vepa, Archik Das, Louise Hartley, Saverio Stranges
Plain language summary
Mediterranean‐style diet for the prevention of cardiovascular disease
It is well established that diet plays a major role in cardiovascular disease risk. The traditional Mediterranean dietary pattern is of particular interest because of observations from the 1960s that populations in countries of the Mediterranean region, such as Greece and Italy, had lower mortality from cardiovascular disease compared with northern European populations or the US, probably as a result of different eating habits.
This review assessed the effects of providing dietary advice to follow a Mediterranean‐style diet or provision of foods relevant to the diet (or both) to healthy adults, people at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and those with cardiovascular disease, in order to prevent the occurrence or recurrence of cardiovascular disease and reduce the risk factors associated with it. Definitions of a Mediterranean dietary pattern vary and we included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that reported both of the following key components: a high monounsaturated/saturated fat ratio (use of olive oil as main cooking ingredient and/or consumption of other traditional foods high in monounsaturated fats such as tree nuts) and a high intake of plant‐based foods, including fruits, vegetables and legumes. Additional components included: low to moderate red wine consumption; high consumption of whole grains and cereals; low consumption of meat and meat products and increased consumption of fish; moderate consumption of milk and dairy products. The control group was no intervention or minimal intervention, usual care or another dietary intervention. We found 30 RCTs (49 papers) that met these criteria. The trials varied enormously in the participants recruited and the different dietary interventions. We grouped studies to look at the effects of following a Mediterranean‐style diet into the following four categories to help us with our interpretation of the results:
1. Mediterranean dietary intervention compared to no intervention or a minimal intervention to prevent the onset of cardiovascular disease;
2. Mediterranean dietary intervention compared to another dietary intervention to prevent the onset of cardiovascular disease;
3. Mediterranean dietary intervention compared to usual care for people with cardiovascular disease to prevent recurrence;
4. Mediterranean dietary intervention compared to another dietary intervention for people with cardiovascular disease to prevent recurrence.
Few trials reported on the occurrence of cardiovascular disease either in those with or without disease to begin with. A large trial in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease found a benefit of the Mediterranean dietary intervention compared to a low‐fat diet on the risk of having a stroke, but not on heart attacks, death from heart disease or other causes. A further study in people with cardiovascular disease found a benefit of the Mediterranean dietary intervention on death from heart disease or other causes. We rated these two studies as providing low to moderate‐quality evidence. We had to exclude two studies from our analyses as concerns had been raised that the data were unreliable. The other trials in the review measured risk factors for cardiovascular disease. There was low to moderate‐quality evidence for some beneficial changes in lipid levels and blood pressure with a Mediterranean‐style diet in people without disease. In people with cardiovascular disease already there was very low to low‐quality evidence that there was no effect of a Mediterranean‐style diet on risk factors. Two trials reported side effects of the diet that were either absent or minor.
The review concludes that, despite the large number of included trials, there is still uncertainty regarding the effects of a Mediterranean‐style diet on cardiovascular disease occurrence and risk factors in people both with and without cardiovascular disease already. We did find seven studies that are still ongoing and when we have the results from these we will incorporate them into the review to help reduce the uncertainty.
Karen Rees, Andrea Takeda, Nicole Martin, Leila Ellis, Dilini Wijesekara, Abhinav Vepa, Archik Das, Louise Hartley, Saverio Stranges
Implications for practice
Despite the large number of trials included in the review there is still uncertainty regarding the effects of a Mediterranean‐style diet on clinical endpoints and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors for both primary and secondary prevention from current clinical trial evidence. However, based on supportive observational evidence, positive findings from early clinical trials and the biological plausibility of several mechanisms to explain the beneficial effect of the Mediterranean diet, it has become a popular dietary pattern.
Indeed, some aspects and components of a Mediterranean‐style diet are already included in scientific and clinical guidelines to promote healthy eating and prevent cardiovascular disease, such as the DASH diet (AHA 2006; AHA/ASA 2011; Appel 2006; Locke 2018), the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the Healthy Eating Plate (Locke 2018), and the Eatwell guide (Public Health England 2018).
Implications for research
There remains uncertainty regarding the effects of a Mediterranean‐style diet on clinical endpoints and CVD risk factors for both primary and secondary prevention. Two trials reporting clinical endpoints for secondary prevention were excluded because of concerns regarding the reliability of the data, so the available evidence is restricted to one large trial and a small trial reporting unadjusted estimates of effect. Several ongoing trials have been identified, particularly reporting clinical endpoints in secondary prevention, which will add to the evidence base. Evidence for primary prevention on clinical endpoints is limited to one large trial with methodological issues (although these have now been addressed in a recent re‐analysis) and a small trial reporting unadjusted effects for stroke. Further adequately powered primary prevention trials are needed to confirm findings on clinical endpoints to date. Many trials reported on CVD risk factors, particularly in primary prevention, but heterogeneity precluded meta‐analyses for some outcomes. With the accrual of further evidence, the heterogeneity observed between trials in terms of both the nature and duration of the intervention, the comparators and the range of participants recruited can be explored further and its impact on outcomes examined.Get full text at The Cochrane Library
Evidence Central is an integrated web and mobile solution that helps clinicians quickly answer etiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis questions using the latest evidence-based research. Complete Product Information.