Tier 3 — preclinical

Coenzyme Q10 in the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analysis of the clinical trials

F L Rosenfeldt, S J Haas, H Krum, A Hadj, K Ng, J-Y Leong, G F Watts
Journal of Human Hypertension 2007 21(4):297-306

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 17287847
DOI
10.1038/sj.jhh.1002138
Funding
S J Haas was supported by an Australian NHMRC postgraduate scholarship. The authors also acknowledged financial support to the Cardiac Surgical Research Unit from Pharma Nord Aps and Blackmores.
Competing interests
A specific author competing-interest declaration was not identified in the accessible record reviewed during this audit.

Study snapshot

DesignMeta-analysis of clinical trials
ModelHypertensive adults treated with oral CoQ10 across randomized, crossover and open-label clinical studies.
Sample12 clinical trials; 362 patients.
InterventionOral CoQ10 versus placebo/control or baseline treatment; doses and regimens varied across studies.
DurationVaried across included trials.
EndpointsSystolic blood pressure; Diastolic blood pressure; Antihypertensive medication requirement; Tolerability

What the study showed, in plain terms

This 2007 meta-analysis pooled 12 clinical studies of CoQ10 in hypertension and reported large average reductions in blood pressure. The randomized-trial subset suggested roughly 16.6 mmHg lower systolic and 8.2 mmHg lower diastolic pressure.

Those numbers are much larger than estimates from later, stricter randomized-trial meta-analyses. Eight of the 12 included studies were open-label, so the paper is historically important but should not be treated as the best estimate of the modern treatment effect.

Key findings

Across three randomized trials, the reported pooled blood-pressure change was approximately -16.6 mmHg systolic and -8.2 mmHg diastolic.

A crossover trial reported reductions of about 11 mmHg systolic and 8 mmHg diastolic.

Eight open-label studies reported average reductions of about 13.5 mmHg systolic and 10.3 mmHg diastolic.

What this study can and cannot tell us

Most included studies were open-label rather than blinded randomized placebo-controlled trials.

The small and methodologically heterogeneous evidence base makes the large pooled effect vulnerable to bias and overestimation.

Later stricter systematic reviews and larger meta-analyses have produced materially smaller or null estimates.

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

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