Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008
Is your multivitamin hurting you?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Myrl - 29 Apr 2008 03:39 GMT Is your multivitamin hurting you? by David Katz, MD, PREVENTION, on Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:40am PDT 172 Comments Post a Comment Report Abuse
Do you take antioxidants or a regular multivitamin? Turns out you might not need to, according to new research in the Cochrane Review that refutes the long-held belief that antioxidants prevent disease or cancer.
Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of existing studies, pertaining to more than 200,000 people, and found that antioxidant supplements-- vitamins A, C, and E; beta-carotene; and selenium--do not prevent heart disease or cancer, do not forestall death, and may even increase mortality risk slightly.
But the phrase "may increase mortality risk slightly" is important to put any risk in context. Given the large pool of people analyzed, researchers would have noticed right away if there was any significant risk of death associated with the supplements. So if all we have is a hint of modest harm, the risk is clearly quite small.
This finding is disappointing and counter-intuitive. How can antioxidant supplements fail to help us and maybe even harm us slightly?
There are several likely answers. First, we may have the doses wrong. Just because some of a thing is good does not mean more is better. Second, maybe we have the wrong combinations. Antioxidants in foods come packaged with many other nutrients, and they all work together. When we separate that harmony, we may wind up with sour notes. Third, the participants in most of these trials were already ill. Perhaps antioxidants have different effects before chronic disease begins. They might even help prevent disease if taken earlier.
In general, my advice about a supplement is to remember it's not a substitute for a healthy diet and lifestyle. Use supplements thoughtfully. Talk to your doctor to be sure there is a sound reason, tailored to your health, for each one you take. Don’t assume that just because a clever ad makes a supplement sound good that it truly is.
I take an Omega-3 fish oil supplement every day, and recommend the same for most of my patients. I believe a multivitamin or mineral supplement is a good idea for many of us, despite a lack of research that shows a clear benefit. (I also like a supplement called Juice Plus, which compresses the nutrients from fruits and vegetables into capsule form, while preserving their native proportions.)
Based on the science we have at present, there is no reason to fear any antioxidant supplements you may have been taking--the potential for harm is minimal. But remember: No pill bottle holds an alternative for a healthy, active lifestyle.
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/is-your-multivitamin-hurting-you-3f-160328/
oeddien - 29 Apr 2008 10:32 GMT > Is your multivitamin hurting you? > by David Katz, MD, PREVENTION, on Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:40am PDT 172 [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/is-your-multivitamin-hurting-yo... if you care healthy you can open my web: http://www.mychlorophyll.com/
JuicePlusJustTakeIt@gmail.com - 29 Apr 2008 18:10 GMT > Is your multivitamin hurting you? > by David Katz, MD, PREVENTION, on Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:40am PDT 172 [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/is-your-multivitamin-hurting-yo... ______________________________________________________________ A Case Study: Juice Plus
In 1994, when I was Health Editor of Vogue magazine. I read a report that Juice Plus contains many of the important nutritional constituents of the fresh fruits and vegetables from which it is made. I hadn't heard of anything like it before (frankly, I never really looked!. In any event, )I decided to try it since I was not consuming enough of the natural products in my daily diet. Since then, most of my family and I have been taking these capsules regularly. Subsequently, I learned that several randomized, double blinded, and placebo-controlled studies had been done on this product and the findings were, for the most part, consistent with the current scientific thinking that fruits and vegetables are good for you.
Just for the record, I have never had any financial interest in the company other than having been being paid for two unrelated talks at their company meetings some 10 and 14 years ago.
Let me emphasize that these capsules are not a substitute for eating fruits and vegetables. They are not meant to be taken instead of food, but only to complement a diet that does not contain them in optimum amounts. The innumerable anecdotal stories of how well people feel are not a substitute for scientific studies, of which there are several valid ones.
Juice Plus is very effectively marketed, and its sales personnel are inspired and enthusiastic. From time to time, I hear some questions raised about whether Juice Plus is all it's cracked up to be (usually from a competitor (whether they identify themselves as such or not). That's part of the game in a free society. One of the criticisms is that much of the clinical research conducted on this product has been funded by NSA, its manufacturer. That's essentially true. However, it's reasonable for manufacturers to sponsor research on their products as long as the conclusions are subject to the checks and balances of internal review boards and their conclusions are reviewed by a peer review panel of scientists prior to publication. Although some of the clinical research conducted on this product has been funded by NSA, I understand that there is at least one ongoing clinical trial currently being done by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.
I have heard complaints that Juice Plus has little or no fiber. That's true because water and some of the fiber in the fruits and vegetables is removed in order to convert the juice into a concentrated powder. While some fiber is restored to the capsule, it is not marketed either as a fiber supplement or as a substitute for eating more fiber-rich fruits, vegetables and whole grains.
Given the high cost of prescription drugs, the growing awareness of the connection between diet and disease, and the growing number of nutritional products on the market today, Americans should take a look at supplements such as Juice Plus - but it's important to do it correctly. And pay no attention to information written by anyone who chooses to remain anonymous. __________________________________________________________________________________________________
Juice Plus+ Just Take It! www.energynutrition.net
PeterB - 29 Apr 2008 23:45 GMT Supposed disclosure of a poster's "identify" can't speak to the value of one's post. Readers have to vet the claims presented and question them just as they would from any other source.
PeterB - 30 Apr 2008 20:37 GMT Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?" It doesn't appear so. Most consumers use typical drug store products made mostly of synthetic materials referred to as "natural vitamins," including synthetic beta carotene, vitamins D and E, and pharmaceutically-made B vitamins. Most of these inferior analogues have been implicated in *other* studies for their questionable health effects. I personally use a synthetic-free food-based multivitamin and know that despite the additional cost, I'm actually getting what I paid for. How said that so-called "vitamin" studies using various synthetic chemicals are really just drug studies marketed without that important disclosure.
Martin - 01 May 2008 08:30 GMT >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?" It doesn't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >so-called "vitamin" studies using various synthetic chemicals are >really just drug studies marketed without that important disclosure. If you want people to get more natural vitamins, why aren't you constantly promoting eating more veggies and fruit? It's because you are employed by a producer of 'natural' vitamins, isn't it?
PeterB - 01 May 2008 20:03 GMT > >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin > >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?" It doesn't [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > constantly promoting eating more veggies and fruit? It's because > you are employed by a producer of 'natural' vitamins, isn't it? Marty, try to keep up. The topic is whether or not a multivitamin can be harmful, and I responded with a brief reference to the type (not brand) of multivitamin I use based on my understanding of health. By all means, eat more fruits and veggies.
If I represented monied interests like you, I suppose I would also attack other posters without regard for the truth. That proves to me that you are guilty of what you accuse me of.
Martin - 02 May 2008 12:25 GMT >> >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin >> >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?" It doesn't [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >attack other posters without regard for the truth. That proves to me >that you are guilty of what you accuse me of. No no no, you stop posting about expensive unnacesary supplements and tell people to stop taking them and start eating more, all natural fruit and veggies and I might start to believe you're not getting paid to do this. But the fact that you don't and the fact that you have returned on this newsgroup at a moment when the economy is bad (and certain slip-ups from you) have convinced me that you are a paid poster.
Rod - 02 May 2008 13:20 GMT >>> >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin >>> >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?" It doesn't [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > certain slip-ups from you) have convinced me that you are a paid > poster. And you are not ?
Martin, you are given to making statements that are not fact so "Piss Off" please.
Cheers, Rod
Martin - 02 May 2008 15:33 GMT >>>> >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin >>>> >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?" It doesn't [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >And you are not ? Sometimes I wish I was.
>Martin, you are given to making statements that are not fact so "Piss Off" >please. > >Cheers, Rod Having a control problem Rod? This is usenet, it's a public forum, so no, I'm not going to piss off. In the mean time: may your head fall off at an awkawrd moment. Cheers Rod!
PeterB - 03 May 2008 00:31 GMT > >> >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin > >> >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?" It doesn't [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > economy is bad (and certain slip-ups from you) have convinced me > that you are a paid poster. Marty, please say hello to your sponsors for me, okay? And if you find supplements to be unncessary for you personally, by all means, don't take them.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com | - 02 May 2008 20:06 GMT > >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin > >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?" It doesn't [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > constantly promoting eating more veggies and fruit? It's because you > are employed by a producer of 'natural' vitamins, isn't it? Martin it would seem you're deflecting. There are chemical differences in vitamin forms. Racemic "vitamin E" compared to high gamma mixed tocopherols, the vitamin D analog vitamin D2 compared to vitamin D3, cyanocobalamin compared to methylcobalamin, all trans beta-carotene compared to a mixture of cis and trans beta-carotene with other carotenoids. Understand I have no problem with vitamins being synthetic rather they do need to have the right structure. Much vitamin research is flawed in that if uses the inferior forms of the vitamins.
Life takes a sharper knife than that butter spreader in your hand.
Martin - 03 May 2008 08:23 GMT On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1972@gmail.com
|" <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin >> >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?" It doesn't [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >compared to a mixture of cis and trans beta-carotene with other >carotenoids. I know all that. Which I why I promote eating more fruit and veggies, which contain stuff that is all natural and for which our body has evolved. It's PeterB who promotes taking all kinds of expensive supplements.
>Understand I have no problem with vitamins being synthetic rather they >do need to have the right structure. Much vitamin research is flawed >in that if uses the inferior forms of the vitamins. Which is why I promote avoiding that by taking veggies and fruit in stead of putting money in the pockets of Big Supplement. PeterB promotes the exact opposite. Why?
>Life takes a sharper knife than that butter spreader in your hand. trigonometry1972@gmail.com | - 03 May 2008 08:48 GMT > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1...@gmail.com > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > >Life takes a sharper knife than that butter spreader in your hand. If I thought veggies and fruits did it all, I'd go that route. But in my view that is a failed approach, sure it is fine for procreation, and even for living to 70 years. But I aim for more and food no matter how good doesn't cut.
Nor are the natural forms always best. I could provide examples but in my experience those fixated on their supposedly natural diets (which in my experience normally aren't) simply plug their ears and go la la la. I could cite various threads preserved in one of the usenet archives the argued this point.
Understand it was sci.life-extension that started my interest in the Usenet. MHA is simply a distraction rather like one of the card games that came with the computer. More over mega doses of certain vitamins and nutrient like substances in my personal can be truly life conserving.
David Wright - 03 May 2008 19:43 GMT >> Which is why I promote avoiding that by taking veggies and fruit in >> stead of putting money in the pockets of Big Supplement. PeterB [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >for living to 70 years. But I aim for more and food no matter >how good doesn't cut. I think these people who say they consume all those veggies and fruit are in the pockets of Big Farma.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan
trigonometry1972@gmail.com | - 03 May 2008 22:21 GMT > In article <af579e59-348d-4d3c-ba28-085b6f911...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." > -- John Dolan OK OK, I could have worded that better. I already eat all the veggies and the fruits (more limited now).
Big Farma, cute. More like small farms when I can or out the backyard kitchen garden.
PeterB - 03 May 2008 21:51 GMT > I know all that. Which I why I promote eating more fruit and > veggies, which contain stuff that is all natural and for which our > body has evolved. It's PeterB who promotes taking all kinds of > expensive supplements. No, I recommend getting the best deal you can find. I suggest those in the states use iherb.com, an online vendor that does not engage in paid referrals, or their local health food stores.
> >Understand I have no problem with vitamins being synthetic rather > >they do need to have the right structure. Much vitamin research [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stead of putting money in the pockets of Big Supplement. PeterB > promotes the exact opposite. Why? Marty, feel free to avoid taking supplements. I'm no different than the other holistic thinkers posting here. We believe in a quality organic diet, and some of us believe in supplementing our diets. I should actually be supplementing more than I do. My posting history reveals that I promote consumer access to nutritional products, meaningful risk-benefit analysis for drugs, the creative destruction of FDA, full disclosure of medical risks related to pharmaceuticals and other medical products, and meaningful enforcement by FTC of drug advertising, which is criminal. Since you could never produce the "quote" you claimed you found in the archives in which I supposedly said I was a vitamin salesman, we all know you were lying about it.
Now, Marty, look at the signature in my various posts. What do you see? Forget the black space you must be falling into by now between your ears, look the other way. Right. WHITE space. I'm not selling *anything* ... But *you* are.
Martin - 03 May 2008 22:32 GMT >> I know all that. Which I why I promote eating more fruit and >> veggies, which contain stuff that is all natural and for which our [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >in the states use iherb.com, an online vendor that does not engage in >paid referrals, or their local health food stores. Ah yes, iherb.com. Bottom of homepage: "Disclaimer : Statements made, or products sold through this web site, have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. They are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." I guess these people do not stand behind their product. So why would anyone buy from them?
>> >Understand I have no problem with vitamins being synthetic rather >> >they do need to have the right structure. Much vitamin research [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >organic diet, and some of us believe in supplementing our diets. I >should actually be supplementing more than I do. So you talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Interesting.
> My posting history reveals that I promote consumer access to nutritional products, Why? Is there anyone attempting to prevent such access? FYI, I'm totally against preventing access. I'm for preventing bogus claims.
>meaningful risk-benefit analysis for drugs, the creative destruction >of FDA, full disclosure of medical risks related to pharmaceuticals [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >your ears, look the other way. Right. WHITE space. I'm not selling >*anything* ... But *you* are. I already said I never claimed you are selling anything. I said you are promoting things and are being paid for it. You're Big Supplement's very own Mr. Astroturf.
MothWrangler - 04 May 2008 01:59 GMT > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1972@gmail.com > |" <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > stead of putting money in the pockets of Big Supplement. PeterB > promotes the exact opposite. Why? Ah, ha! Now I know you're a Farma-shill.
How much are you getting paid to shill for Big Farma?
 Signature Proud member since 2007, WWWSC #1 Ann/Emma Anne #4
Peter Bowditch - 04 May 2008 03:51 GMT >> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1972@gmail.com >> |" <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >How much are you getting paid to shill for Big Farma? I just took over the management of a web site for a town with an economy based almost totally on farming. I was even paid to do it. I am obviously now a paid shill for Big Farma.
Wait until the gold mine opens later this year. Perhaps I can get on the payroll of Big Digga. (If they use a cyanide extraction process I could even sell the water from the tailings dam as a cure for cancer. Laetrile, you know.)
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
PeterB - 04 May 2008 04:26 GMT > >> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1...@gmail.com > >> |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > process I could even sell the water from the tailings dam as a > cure for cancer. Laetrile, you know.) Since food-based laetrile doesn't contain free cyanide, you might have to market your water from the tailings dam as a drug. You could call it cya-nara and claim that it cures people of cancer permanently. Me, I'll take the laetrile.
Martin - 04 May 2008 11:01 GMT >> >> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1...@gmail.com >> >> |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >it cya-nara and claim that it cures people of cancer permanently. Me, >I'll take the laetrile. Great news! When do you start?
trigonometry1972@gmail.com | - 04 May 2008 05:13 GMT > >> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1...@gmail.com > >> |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com Though Peter is just trying to be clever, big mining concerns have left huge messes on the landscape. Heavy metals such as Pb, Hg, Cd, As, and acidic run off are the externalities of such operations. Don't forget just how toxic all the processing from ore to metal is beyond just the simple act of mining. I seen towns poisoned by lead because it was cheaper to pay the fines than clean up the stack emissions.
Big mining suits you Peter.
D. C. Sessions - 04 May 2008 15:04 GMT > Though Peter is just trying to be clever, big mining concerns > have left huge messes on the landscape. Heavy metals such [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I seen towns poisoned by lead because it was cheaper to pay > the fines than clean up the stack emissions. On it and under it. This year's heavy snowfalls are expected to fill up the closed mines around Leadville CO and run a lot of metals into the river -- which supplies, directly or indirectly, the water supply for much of the area around Denver.
However, mining isn't really necessary for heavy metal pollution. A good example is the South Bay area (Silicon Valley), which is adjacent to a rich deposit of cinnabar (mercury). The groundwater there has been loaded with mercury since before the first well was dug, and it feeds into San Francisco Bay. Don't eat the fish.
Other areas (e.g. central Arizona) have plentiful arsenic deposits in the subsurface strata. No mining worth mentioning around Cave Creek, but the wells there are always towards the high end of the safe arsenic levels.
Those minerals have been in the Earth for a LONG time, and so has the water. Don't be surprised if they got intimate.
| sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+
MothWrangler - 04 May 2008 17:26 GMT >>Though Peter is just trying to be clever, big mining concerns >>have left huge messes on the landscape. Heavy metals such [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Those minerals have been in the Earth for a LONG time, and so has > the water. Don't be surprised if they got intimate. Sorry, D.C., but I'm not buying this.
I don't believe that these toxins are naturally in the water. God wouldn't put something as toxic as mercury or arsenic in our drinking water.
You know as well as I do that lead and mercury are even more toxic than that terrible toxin formaldehyde.
And if God wouldn't put a toxin like formaldehyde in our food--and we know God wouldn't do such a thing because God doesn't go around poisoning people (although, admittedly, He smites those made in His image in many other ways, some quite horrible and/or dramatic)--He would never put something even *more* toxic into our drinking water, especially since we almost universally have many fewer options in what water we drink than what foods we choose to eat.
If these toxic chemicals like lead and mercury are in our water, I'm sure God wasn't to blame. So, just who put these toxins into the drinking water? Big Pharma? Big Farma? Big Digga? Someone other than God has to be the culprit.
 Signature Proud member since 2007, WWWSC #1 Ann/Emma Anne #4
D. C. Sessions - 04 May 2008 18:36 GMT > Sorry, D.C., but I'm not buying this. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > drinking water? Big Pharma? Big Farma? Big Digga? Someone other than God > has to be the culprit. Good question. I can't address the theology of it, but I do know that mountain springs in areas where there has never been mining, industry, or even more than passing human habitation have heavy metal content that you don't want to be drinking for very long.
| sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+
MothWrangler - 04 May 2008 19:18 GMT >>Sorry, D.C., but I'm not buying this. >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > human habitation have heavy metal content that you don't > want to be drinking for very long. Maybe they're blowing in from China.
 Signature Proud member since 2007, WWWSC #1 Ann/Emma Anne #4
MothWrangler - 04 May 2008 06:27 GMT >>>On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1972@gmail.com >>>|" <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > could even sell the water from the tailings dam as a cure for cancer. > Laetrile, you know.) Damn! You're adding new shilling accounts by the...um...decade, while I haven't been able to land on even one payroll, despite my years of dedicated posting, effective shilling skills, and highly influential posts.
What am I doing wrong? Do you have any suggestions or pointers for me?
I just found out that I need to replace important parts of my central A/C system, and the first estimate I got was for over $12,000, so I could use a little extra cash right now.
Nancy Unique, like everyone else
 Signature Proud member since 2007, WWWSC #1 Ann/Emma Anne #4
Jan Drew - 05 May 2008 04:21 GMT http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.attn-deficit/msg/7c164120890c998a
Jan 26 2008
I can't read too many of the posts on MHA myself. The sheer magnitude of uneducated (and not just uneducated, but *proudly* uneducated), illogical, magical, and delusional thinking there makes me too Woo-zy.
Nancy Unique, like everyone else
Jan Drew - 03 May 2008 02:29 GMT "Martin" <idontwantno@spam.com>
http://www.myspace.com/mrady66
PeterB - 01 May 2008 20:07 GMT Timing key to multivitamin benefits
08-Oct-2003 - People who have been taking multivitamins for a long period of time could see a reduced risk of colorectal cancer, report researchers in the US. However they noted that the vitamins had no effect after a short period of use.
The study, published in the recent issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, shows that people who took multivitamins regularly from 10 years before the start of the study had an approximately 30 per cent lower risk of developing the cancer. Those who had only recently begun to use multivitamins saw no significant benefits however. Previous studies suggest that multivitamin use may reduce colorectal cancer risk but only after a long latency period, reported the researchers from the Atlanta-based American Cancer Society. The authors, investigating the role of timing in vitamin use, examined the relationship between regular multivitamins (four or more times per week) and colorectal cancer incidence among 145,260 men and women in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort.
Current multivitamin use was reported on a questionnaire at enrollment in 1992-1993, while multivitamin use had already been obtained for a different study approximately 10 years earlier.
The authors observed 797 incident cases of colorectal cancer during follow-up from 1992 to 1997. After adjustment for multiple risk factors, they found that regular multivitamin use at enrollment was not associated with risk of the cancer, whereas regular multivitamin use 10 years before enrollment was associated with a 30 per cent reduced risk.
The researchers were cautious about the study results, calling it 'limited evidence' of the association between multivitamins and the cancer. They are also lacking evidence to determine the component in multivitamins linked to the protective effect.
However while research showing the positive association between multivitamin use and cancer prevention remains conflicting, a second US report out last week suggested that use of the supplements could help save billions of dollars in healthcare.
Funded by Wyeth Consumer Healthcare and conducted by the US-based Lewin Group, the report found that if older adults took daily multivitamins, the country could save more than $1.6 billion in Medicare over the next five years.
"We were able to identify significant cost savings based on improved immune functioning and a reduction in the relative risk of coronary artery disease through providing a daily multivitamin to the 65 and over population," said Dr Allen Dobson, senior vice president and director of Healthcare Finance at The Lewin Group at a conference on multivitamins in Washington last week. "In my experience, finding any cost savings for preventive measures is unusual and finding cost savings of this magnitude is very rare."
The study was based on a rigorous review of literature on the health effects of multivitamin use among adults over 65 years old. The researchers analysed Medicare claims files and widely accepted Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost accounting methods to determine the costs and potential savings from the protection afforded by multivitamin supplementation
Over the five-year period from 2004-2008, the study results show potential savings from a reduction in hospitalisations for heart attacks, as well as from a reduction in hospitalisations, Medicare nursing home stays and home healthcare associated with infection.
The preventive benefits of multivitamins on colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes and osteoporosis were not included in the cost estimation, however, because the researchers concluded that evidence currently available in these areas did not support a direct translation from health effect to reduced heath care use within a health insurance framework, they said.
Experts at the 'Multivitamins and Public Health: Exploring the Evidence' meeting also concluded that multivitamins are safe, affordable, cost-effective and accessible and that there is promising evidence supporting multivitamin use for theprevention of some chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease.
© 2001/2008 – Decision News Media SAS – All Rights Reserved.
http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?id=38766-timing-key-to
|
|
|