Safety of creatine supplementation: Analysis of Adverse Events reported in clinical trials and adverse event reports
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Individual studies have indicated that creatine monohydrate (CrM) supplementation is generally well tolerated and not associated with clinically significant side effects. Nevertheless, anecdotal reports about side effects persist. This comprehensive analysis aimed to analyze the prevalence of adverse event reports (AERs) attributed to creatine supplementation reported in international surveillance systems.Methods We performed a comprehensive literature review on PubMed with the keywords “creatine” and “supplementation.” The prevalence of AERs mentioning creatine reported in the United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS), the Canadian Vigilance Adverse Reaction Online Database, the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care, Therapeutic Goods Administration, the European Database of Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reports, and the Side Effect Resource (SIDER) 4.1 Side Effect Resource were assessed. These databases were searched for “creatine’ in dietary supplements or products following accepted protocols. Each report was evaluated to ensure creatine (Cr) was in the product mentioned by conducting an Internet search for the product name and evaluating the list of ingredients. We then categorized reports on products that contained only CrM, reports that involved consuming CrM in multi-ingredient supplements, products containing other “forms” or types of Cr, and whether Cr was consumed with other products. The total number of reports was divided by the total number of reports in the database over the 25, 50, 27, 24, and 10 years of monitoring AERs, respectively, to determine the percentage of reports in the database mentioning Cr. While AERs do not indicate causality, particularly when co-ingested with other nutrients and/or products, a low percentage of mentioning a nutrient or drug in these databases suggests safety from widespread use by the general public.Results Although AERs do not provide enough detail to assess causality and may not be attributed to creatine supplementation, only 203 adverse events mention creatine among 28.4 million reports (0.00072%). In the United States CAERS database, 46.3% of reports listing creatine did not contain creatine when evaluating the ingredients of the product listed. Among the CAERS that contained creatine as an ingredient, 37% listed CrM as the only product the individual was consuming, and 63% contained other nutrients consumed with CrM. Of these, only 15.8% involved ingestion of CrM with other nutrients, 47.3% involved other types of creatine, and 43.6% involved ingesting creatine with nutritional products or drugs, which makes attribution of CAERS to CrM alone impossible. Similar findings were seen when looking at other databases’ products associated with AERs.Conclusions The mention of Cr in worldwide AERs is rare (0.00072%), mostly associated with co-ingestion of other nutrients and/or drugs, and in some cases report symptoms Cr studies never observed in any clinical trial or unrelated to the known effects of Cr supplementation. These findings indicate that Cr supplements are well-tolerated in children through older adults and healthy and medically managed patient populations. Therefore, claims that Cr supplementation increases the risk of untoward side effects or AERs are unfounded. Based on these data, we urge lobbyists, policymakers, and health agencies to consult with leading creatine scientists and consider the full spectrum of scientific data before implementing restrictions with adverse public health and performance implications.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,081 | 0,149 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,028 | 0,021 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».