METHODS: Using a 2-by-2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned participants without cardiovascular disease who had an elevated INTERHEART Risk Score to receive a polypill (containing 40 mg of simvastatin, 100 mg of atenolol, 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, and 10 mg of ramipril) or placebo daily, aspirin (75 mg) or placebo daily, and vitamin D or placebo monthly. We report here the outcomes for the polypill alone as compared with matching placebo, for aspirin alone as compared with matching placebo, and for the polypill plus aspirin as compared with double placebo. For the polypill-alone and polypill-plus-aspirin comparisons, the primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or revascularization. For the aspirin comparison, the primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS: A total of 5713 participants underwent randomization, and the mean follow-up was 4.6 years. The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was lower by approximately 19 mg per deciliter and systolic blood pressure was lower by approximately 5.8 mm Hg with the polypill and with combination therapy than with placebo. The primary outcome for the polypill comparison occurred in 126 participants (4.4%) in the polypill group and in 157 (5.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 1.00). The primary outcome for the aspirin comparison occurred in 116 participants (4.1%) in the aspirin group and in 134 (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.10). The primary outcome for the polypill-plus-aspirin comparison occurred in 59 participants (4.1%) in the combined-treatment group and in 83 (5.8%) in the double-placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.97). The incidence of hypotension or dizziness was higher in groups that received the polypill than in their respective placebo groups.

Objective: This review aims to summarize the clinical evidence regarding the use of chia seed for a wide variety of health conditions.

Data Sources: A number of databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched systematically.

Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials that assessed the clinical effects of chia seed consumption in human participants were included. The quality of trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

Data Extraction: Data on study design, blinding status, characteristics of participants, chia seed intervention, comparator, clinical assessment, duration of intake, interval of assessment, and study funding status were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed.

Results: Twelve trials were included. Participants included healthy persons, athletes, diabetic patients, and individuals with metabolic syndrome. Pooling of results showed no significant differences except for the following findings of subgroup analysis at higher doses of chia seed: (1) lower postprandial blood glucose level (mean difference [MD] of -33.95 incremental area under the curve [iAUC] [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -61.85, -6.05] and -51.60 iAUC [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -79.64, -23.56] at medium doses and high doses, respectively); (2) lower high-density lipoprotein in serum (MD of -0.10 mmol/L [95%CI, -0.20, -0.01]); and (3) lower diastolic blood pressure (MD of -7.14 mmHg [95%CI, -11.08, -3.19]). The quality of all evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was low or very low. All trials employed only surrogate markers as outcomes.

Conclusions: Future trials with improved methodological quality, well-described clinical events, and validated surrogate markers as outcomes are needed to support the potential health benefits of chia seed consumption.

METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Web of Science, ProQuest, and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry were searched. Studies were included if they randomized adults with orthostatic hypotension to droxidopa or to control, and outcomes related to symptoms, daily activity, blood pressure, or adverse events. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was judged against the Cochrane risk of bias tool and quality of evidence measured using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. A fixed-effects model was used for pooled analysis.

RESULTS: Of 224 identified records, four studies met eligibility, with a pooled sample size of 494. Study duration was between 1 and 8 weeks. Droxidopa was effective at reducing dizziness [mean difference -0.97 (95% confidence interval -1.51, -0.42)], overall symptoms [-0.52 (-0.98, -0.06)] and difficulty with activity [-0.86 (-1.34, -0.38)]. Droxidopa was also effective at improving standing SBP [3.9 (0.1, 7.69)]. Rates of adverse events were similar between droxidopa and control groups, including supine hypertension [odds ratio 1.93 (0.87, 4.25)].

CONCLUSION: Droxidopa is well tolerated and effective at reducing the symptoms associated with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension without increasing the risk of supine hypertension.