Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 9 (10)

Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation for Prevention of Preeclampsia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Affiliations
Review

Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation for Prevention of Preeclampsia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Win Khaing et al. Nutrients.

Abstract

Vitamin D supplementation effects with or without calcium in pregnancy for reducing risk of preeclampsia and gestational or pregnancy induced hypertension are controversial. Literature was systematically searched in Medline, Scopus and Cochrane databases from inception to July 2017. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in English were selected if they had any pair of interventions (calcium, vitamin D, both, or placebo). Systematic review with two-step network-meta-analysis was used to indirectly estimate supplementary effects. Twenty-seven RCTs with 28,000 women were eligible. A direct meta-analysis suggested that calcium, vitamin D, and calcium plus vitamin D could lower risk of preeclampsia when compared to placebo with the pooled risk ratios (RRs) of 0.54 (0.41, 0.70), 0.47 (0.24, 0.89) and 0.50 (0.32, 0.78), respectively. Results of network meta-analysis were similar with the corresponding RRs of 0.49 (0.35, 0.69), 0.43 (0.17, 1.11), and 0.57 (0.30, 1.10), respectively. None of the controls were significant. Efficacy of supplementation, which was ranked by surface under cumulative ranking probabilities, were: vitamin D (47.4%), calcium (31.6%) and calcium plus vitamin D (19.6%), respectively. Calcium supplementation may be used for prevention for preeclampsia. Vitamin D might also worked well but further large scale RCTs are warranted to confirm our findings.

Keywords: calcium; gestational hypertension; network meta-analysis; preeclampsia; prevention; systematic review; vitamin D.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of selection of studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of intervention effects compared to placebo on preeclampsia: a network meta-analysis.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 7 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Tranquilli A., Dekker G., Magee L., Roberts J., Sibai B., Steyn W., Zeeman G., Brown M. The classification, diagnosis and management of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: A revised statement from the isshp. Pregnancy Hypertens. Int. J. Women’s Cardiovasc. Health. 2014;4:97–104. doi: 10.1016/j.preghy.2014.02.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Abalos E., Cuesta C., Grosso A.L., Chou D., Say L. Global and regional estimates of preeclampsia and eclampsia: A systematic review. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2013;170:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.05.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ananth C.V., Keyes K.M., Wapner R.J. Pre-eclampsia rates in the United States, 1980–2010: Age-period-cohort analysis. BMJ. 2013;347:f6564. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f6564. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Osungbade K.O., Ige O.K. Public health perspectives of preeclampsia in developing countries: Implication for health system strengthening. J. Pregnancy. 2011;2011:1–6. doi: 10.1155/2011/481095. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Abalos E., Cuesta C., Carroli G., Qureshi Z., Widmer M., Vogel J.P., Souza J.P., WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health Research Network Pre-eclampsia, eclampsia and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes: A secondary analysis of the world health organization multicountry survey on maternal and newborn health. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2014;121:14–24. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12629. - DOI - PubMed
Feedback