Tier 3 — preclinical

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of coenzyme Q10 in isolated systolic hypertension

B E Burke, R Neuenschwander, R D Olson
Southern Medical Journal 2001 94(11):1112-1117

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 11780680
Funding
Specific funding information was not identified in the accessible bibliographic record reviewed during this audit.
Competing interests
Specific competing-interest disclosures were not identified in the accessible bibliographic record reviewed during this audit.

Study snapshot

DesignRandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
ModelAdults with isolated systolic hypertension.
Sample83 participants: 46 men and 37 women.
InterventionCoQ10 60 mg twice daily (120 mg/day) versus placebo.
Duration12 weeks.
EndpointsSystolic blood pressure; Orthostatic blood pressure; Tolerability

What the study showed, in plain terms

This older randomized trial reported a large reduction in systolic blood pressure with 120 mg/day CoQ10 over 12 weeks in people with isolated systolic hypertension.

The reported mean systolic reduction was 17.8 mmHg. The result is notable, but it sits inside an older small-trial literature whose effect estimates are much larger than later pooled estimates, so it should not be used alone to predict what most patients will experience.

Key findings

CoQ10 120 mg/day was associated with a reported mean systolic blood-pressure reduction of 17.8 ± 7.3 mmHg (mean ± SEM).

The investigators reported no significant orthostatic blood-pressure changes.

What this study can and cannot tell us

The trial was small and predates modern blood-pressure trial standards.

The effect size is substantially larger than estimates from later meta-analyses, which raises concern about small-study effects and methodological limitations.

Later strict systematic review evidence judged one eligible positive trial to have unacceptably high risk of bias; the broader older literature therefore requires cautious interpretation.

Citation network

Articles citing this research paper

1 article

Biohack Blueprint analyses that reference this study in their evidence base.

Editorial review

Reviewed by the Biohack Blueprint research team

Last verified