The Role of Coenzyme Q10 in Cardiovascular Disease Treatment: An Updated 2024 Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies (2000-2023)

Inclusion criteria

• Adult populations (aged 18 years and above) with cardiovascular diseases or heart failure.

• Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of CoQ10 supplementation on cardiovascular function.

Exclusion criteria

• Studies that focused solely on healthy individuals or those without cardiovascular diseases or heart failure. Non-original articles (e.g., reviews, editorials, letters), animal studies, and in vitro studies.

• Studies that did not investigate CoQ10 supplementation or used CoQ10 in combination with other interventions. Studies that did not report relevant outcomes or provided insufficient data for meta-analysis.

• Studies published in languages other than English.

Exposures to be Reviewed

CoQ10 is a naturally occurring, lipid-soluble antioxidant that plays a crucial role in the mitochondrial electron transport chain, supporting cellular energy production [2]. It exists in two main forms: ubiquinone, the oxidized form, and ubiquinol, the reduced form [3].

The exposure of interest in this systematic review and meta-analysis was CoQ10 supplementation, administered orally as either ubiquinone or ubiquinol, for the purpose of improving cardiovascular function in patients with cardiovascular diseases or heart failure [5-6].

Inclusion criteria

• Studies that provided CoQ10 supplementation as a standalone intervention, without other confounding treatments.

• Studies that reported the dosage, duration, and form (ubiquinone or ubiquinol) of CoQ10 supplementation.

• Studies that used a validated method to assess adherence to CoQ10 supplementation, such as pill counts or biomarker measurements (e.g., plasma CoQ10 levels) [4].

Exclusion criteria

• Studies that used CoQ10 in combination with other interventions, such as other supplements or medications, making it difficult to isolate the effects of CoQ10.

• Studies that did not provide sufficient information on CoQ10 dosage, duration, or form.

• Studies that did not assess or report adherence to CoQ10 supplementation.

Inclusion criteria

• Studies that compared CoQ10 supplementation to placebo or no intervention.

• Studies that used a placebo with identical appearance, taste, and smell to the CoQ10 supplement to ensure blinding of participants and personnel.

• Studies that provided sufficient data to allow for the comparison of outcomes between the CoQ10 and control groups.

Exclusion criteria

• Studies that used an active comparator (e.g., another supplement or medication) instead of placebo or no intervention, as this could confound the effects of CoQ10 supplementation.

• Studies that did not provide sufficient data to allow for the comparison of outcomes between the CoQ10 and control groups.

• Studies with a crossover design that did not include a washout period between the CoQ10 and placebo phases, as this could lead to carryover effects and bias the results [13].

Study Quality Assessment

The methodological quality of the included studies (was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2) [15] to evaluate the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The RoB 2 tool assesses the following domains:

1. Bias arising from the randomization process

2. Bias due to deviations from intended interventions

3. Bias due to missing outcome data

4. Bias in measurement of the outcome

5. Bias in selection of the reported result

For non-randomized studies (e.g., cohort studies, case-control studies), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used. The ROBINS-I tool evaluates the following domains:

1. Bias due to confounding

2. Bias in selection of participants into the study

3. Bias in classification of interventions

4. Bias due to deviations from intended interventions

5. Bias due to missing data

6. Bias in measurement of outcomes

7. Bias in selection of the reported result

Each domain within the risk of bias tools was rated as “low risk,” “some concerns,” or “high risk” of bias, based on the criteria provided in the respective tool manuals.

In addition

1. Study design (e.g., parallel-group RCT, crossover RCT, prospective cohort study)

2. Sample size and statistical power

3. Adequacy of outcome measurement methods

4. Handling of missing data

Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis

1. Descriptive Analysis: The data from the included studies were synthesized using Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.4.1) [1].

2. Meta-Analysis: The primary outcome measure was the effect of CoQ10 supplementation on ejection fraction, a marker of systolic function. Secondary outcomes included endothelial function and other relevant markers of cardiovascular function.

   For continuous outcomes, the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated using the inverse-variance method [2]. The SMD was used to combine data from studies that reported different scales or units of measurement for the same outcome [3].

3. Assessment of Heterogeneity: Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using the Cochran’s Q test and the I² statistic [4]. An I² value greater than 50% was considered to represent substantial heterogeneity [5].

   In the presence of substantial heterogeneity, a random-effects model was used for meta-analysis; otherwise, a fixed-effect model was employed [6].

4. Sensitivity Analyses: Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by excluding studies with a high risk of bias or by using alternative statistical models [8].

5. Publication Bias: Publication bias was assessed visually using funnel plots and statistically using Egger’s test [9]. A p-value less than 0.05 for Egger’s test was considered indicative of potential publication bias [10].

6. Subgroup analyses were planned a priori to explore potential sources of heterogeneity, including the form of CoQ10 (ubiquinone or ubiquinol), dosage, treatment duration, and participant characteristics (e.g., age, sex, cardiovascular disease type) [7].

   1. Form of CoQ10:

      • - Subgroup 1:

        Studies using ubiquinone (oxidized form) as the CoQ10 supplement - Subgroup 2: Studies using ubiquinol (reduced form) as the CoQ10 supplement

   2. Dosage of CoQ10:

      Subgroup 1: Studies with a CoQ10 dosage ≤ 200 mg/day

      Subgroup 2: Studies with a CoQ10 dosage > 200 mg/day.

   3. Treatment Duration:

      Subgroup 1: Studies with a treatment duration ≤ 12 weeks

      Subgroup 2: Studies with a treatment duration > 12 weeks

   4. Type of Cardiovascular Disease:

      Subgroup 1: Studies involving participants with heart failure

      Subgroup 2: Studies involving participants with other cardiovascular diseases (e.g., coronary artery disease, hypertension, arrhythmias)

Ejection Fraction

The meta-analysis of 10 studies (n = 1,524 participants) showed that CoQ10 supplementation significantly improved ejection fraction compared to placebo or no intervention (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.53, p < 0.00001, I² = 32%) (Table 1). The effect size was considered small to moderate [1-3].

Endothelial Function

Six studies (n = 842 participants) reported data on endothelial function, as assessed by flow-mediated dilation (FMD) or other relevant markers.

The meta-analysis revealed a significant improvement in endothelial function with CoQ10 supplementation compared to placebo or no intervention (SMD = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.72, p < 0.0001, I² = 45%) (Table 2) [4-6].

Other Cardiovascular Outcomes

Several studies reported data on other cardiovascular outcomes, such as exercise capacity, quality of life, and biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation.

The meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in exercise capacity (SMD = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.86, p < 0.00001, I² = 21%) and quality of life (SMD = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.65, p < 0.00001, I² = 0%) with CoQ10 supplementation compared to placebo or no intervention (Table 3) [7-9].

Additionally, CoQ10 supplementation was associated with a reduction in biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation, although the results were heterogeneous across studies [2,4].

Certainty of Evidence: The certainty of evidence for the primary outcome of ejection fraction was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. The evidence was rated as moderate.

This rating indicates that we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.