This week's big vitamin E headlines are on data from the Women's Health Study that included almost 40,000 women aged 45 and older who took 600 IUs of vitamin E, or a placebo, every other day and were followed for 10 years.
The women who took vitamin E in this study were over 20% less likely to develop venous thromboembolism than the women who did not, but the reduction was more than double this (44%) among the women who had a history of clots. And taking vitamin E appeared to cut the clot risk in half among women with genetic mutations that increased their risk.
This study data, which was reported in the September 2007 journal Circulation, found no significant side effects in the female study participants who took vitamin E for an average of 10 years.
This news follows right on the heels of last months Archives of Internal Medicine study, which found a 23% reduction in the compliant primary CVD mortality end point in the at risk women who actually took 600 IUs of natural Vitamin E every other day. Unfortunately, the study results were misrepresented by including the non-compliant participants in the findings. That study author found no adverse effects in the vitamin E study groups.
In the face of this news and the news that the 2004 vitamin E meta-analysis was unreliable science since a fairly large number of positive vitamin E studies were not included in the meta-analysis, the American Heart Association continues to swiftboat vitamin E by suggesting that "Vitamin E Is Not Ready for Prime Time."
Given the positive results of so many well-designed vitamin E studies, we must now all ask ourselves-what's really motivating AHA to take this stand?