When the Auckland researchers added the results from the WHI subanalysis to their previously reported meta-analysis, they “just reinforced the trends and made them more significant,” Dr. Reid said in an interview.
When data from the WHI subgroup that did not use personal calcium supplements at baseline were added to the meta-analysis, the results showed that those who did take supplements had a 24% relative excess of MIs, a 15% relative excess of stroke, and a 16% relative excess of MI or stroke, he reported.
“What we now have is six or seven very large trials, and [the results they show] for myocardial infarction all line up very consistently, without significant heterogeneity. When you look at risk vs. benefit, the evidence for an increased risk of myocardial infarction is stronger than the evidence that calcium supplements prevent bone fractures. It's hard to justify continuing calcium supplements,” Dr. Reid said.
The evidence for an increased MI risk is stronger than the evidence that supplements prevent bone fractures.
Source DR. REID
There are concerns about 'whether omitting the subgroups with favorable results is appropriate.'
Source DR. MANSON