MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981789926 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz748.0078

1443Safety of red yeast rice supplementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2019· review· en· W2981789926 on OpenAlexaff
Federica Fogacci, Maciej Banach, D.P. Mikhailidis, Éric Bruckert, Peter P. Tóth, Gerald F. Watts, Željko Reiner, G.B. John Mancini, Manfredi Rizzo, Olena Mitchenko, D P Pella, Zlatko Fras, A F G Sahebkar, Michal Vrablı́k, Arrigo F.G. Cicero

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Metabolism and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRed yeast riceTolerabilityInternal medicineAdverse effectStatinOdds ratioRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalPlaceboPopulationmyalgiaEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Recently, concerns regarding the safety of red yeast rice (RYR) have been raised after the publication of some case reports claiming toxicity. Purpose Since the previous meta-analyses on the effects of RYR were mainly focused on its efficacy to improve the lipid profile and other cardiovascular parameters, we carried out a meta-analysis on safety data derived from the available randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Methods Primary outcomes were musculoskeletal disorders (MuD). Secondary outcomes were non-musculoskeletal adverse events (Non-MuD) and serious adverse events (SAE). Subgroups analyses were carried out considering the intervention (RYR alone or in association with other nutraceutical compounds), monacolin K administered daily dose (≤3, <3–5 and >5 mg/day), follow-up (>12 or ≤12 weeks), with statin therapy or statin-intolerance and type of control treatment (placebo or statin treatment). Results Data were pooled from 52 RCTs comprising 110 treatment arms, which included 8503 subjects, with 4421 in the RYR arm and 4287 in the control one. Monacolin K administration was not associated with increased risk of MuD (odds ratio [OR]=0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53,1.65). (Figure below presents the forest plot comparing the RYR associated risk of MuD in the entire population). Moreover, we found a reduced risk of Non-MuD (OR=0.59, 95% CI 0.50, 0.69) and SAE (OR=0.54, 95% CI 0.46, 0.64) vs. control. Subgroups analyses confirmed the high tolerability profile of RYR. Furthermore, increasing daily doses of monacolin K were negatively associated with increasing risk of Non-MuD (slope: −0.10; 95% CI: −0.17, −0.03; two-tailed p<0.01). Forest plot on RYR link with MuD risk. Conclusions Based on our data, RYR use as lipid-lowering dietary supplement seems to be overall tolerable and safe in a large population of moderately hypercholesterolaemic subjects. Acknowledgement/Funding None

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.036
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicMicrobial Metabolism and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207