Tier 2 — strong

Effects of coenzyme Q10 administration on blood pressure and heart rate in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Mehdi Karimi, Samira Pirzad, Farnaz Hooshmand, Niyousha Shirsalimi, Seyed Morteza Ali Pourfaraji
International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention 2025 26:200424

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 40495903
PubMed Central
PMC12150111
DOI
10.1016/j.ijcrp.2025.200424
Funding
None.
Competing interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Study snapshot

DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
ModelSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating CoQ10/Q10 administration on systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate in adults.
Sample45 RCTs contributing 48 effect sizes.
InterventionCoQ10/Q10 interventions of varying formulation, dose and duration versus placebo/control; analyses included dose, duration, health-status and formulation subgroups.
DurationTrials varied in duration; prespecified subgroup comparison was ≤8 weeks versus >8 weeks.
EndpointsSystolic blood pressure; Diastolic blood pressure; Heart rate; Dose subgroup; Trial-duration subgroup; Health-status subgroup; Formulation subgroup; Sensitivity analysis; Publication bias

What the study showed, in plain terms

This 2025 meta-analysis pooled 45 randomized controlled trials (48 effect sizes) to estimate the effect of CoQ10 on blood pressure and heart rate in adults. The pooled effect on systolic blood pressure was modest: about a 3–3.5 mmHg reduction. Diastolic blood pressure and heart rate did not show statistically significant overall changes.

The pooled systolic effect was WMD -3.44 mmHg (95% CI -5.13 to -1.55; p<0.01). Diastolic blood pressure was WMD -1.13 mmHg (95% CI -2.16 to 0.50; p=0.23), and heart rate was WMD -0.10 bpm (95% CI -2.09 to 1.89; p=0.44).

Longer interventions (>8 weeks) showed a larger systolic reduction (-4.67 mmHg, 95% CI -7.32 to -2.01). The authors also reported larger systolic effects in the lower-dose subgroup and in participants with pre-existing health conditions. However, heterogeneity was high, so these subgroup patterns should not be treated as a precise dosing prescription.

Key findings

Systolic BP: pooled WMD approximately -3.44 mmHg (95% CI -5.13 to -1.55; p<0.01). The detailed table reports -3.34 mmHg (95% CI -5.13 to -1.56) across 48 effect sizes, reflecting a minor reporting inconsistency within the article.

Diastolic BP: WMD -1.13 mmHg (95% CI -2.16 to 0.50; p=0.23)—not significant.

Heart rate: WMD -0.10 bpm (95% CI -2.09 to 1.89; p=0.44)—not significant.

Duration subgroup: >8 weeks WMD -4.67 mmHg (95% CI -7.32 to -2.01; p<0.01) for systolic BP; ≤8 weeks did not reach conventional significance.

Dose subgroup: the article reports a larger systolic reduction in the lower-dose category (table: ≤200 mg/day, WMD -6.05 mmHg, 95% CI -11.38 to -0.72) than >200 mg/day (-2.72 mmHg, 95% CI -4.34 to -1.09).

Heterogeneity was substantial for overall systolic BP (I² about 87.5%), indicating large between-trial variation despite a statistically significant pooled mean effect.

Protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42025647807. Funding: none. Authors declared no conflicts of interest.

What this study can and cannot tell us

Very high between-study heterogeneity, especially for systolic BP, limits the precision and transportability of the pooled estimate.

Trials differed in population health status, baseline blood pressure, CoQ10 form/formulation, dose, duration and concomitant treatment; these factors make a single pooled effect an approximation rather than a universal response.

Subgroup findings are exploratory and can be confounded by differences between trials; they should not be interpreted as proving an optimal dose.

The article contains a small numerical/reporting inconsistency for the overall systolic effect (-3.44 mmHg in the abstract versus -3.34 mmHg in the detailed table); both values are retained in this record for transparency.

Citation network

Articles citing this research paper

3 articles

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

Editorial review

Reviewed by the Biohack Blueprint research team

Last verified

Dr. Khaled Mahmoud, MBBChCritical Care Medicine, Longevity Science & Editorial Direction Dr. Amr Yasser, PhDCardiometabolic, Musculoskeletal, Gut & Bioavailability Dr. Abdulla Mostafa, PhDCellular Senescence, Neurological, Mitochondrial & Brain-Ageing Biology