How to Evaluate Supplement Evidence

Why plausible biology and promising early data have repeatedly failed to predict what rigorous trials actually find.

Medical Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Information is based on current medical literature and clinical guidelines but may not apply to your specific situation. Individual responses vary based on personal medical history and concurrent conditions. Always consult qualified healthcare providers for medical decisions. Never delay seeking medical care based on content you’ve read. If experiencing a medical emergency, seek immediate medical attention.

These articles provide education to enhance your healthcare partnership. All treatment decisions should involve your healthcare team. Use this knowledge to have informed discussions, not to replace medical care.

In brief: Most cardiovascular supplements have never been tested in trials measuring heart attacks, strokes, or cardiovascular death. Many that were tested failed, and a few caused harm. The same sequence — plausible mechanism, encouraging early data, disappointing or harmful trial — has played out across supplements, prescription drugs, and even surgery. This article gives you ten questions that let you judge any supplement claim on its evidence rather than its marketing, with vitamin E as a worked example of how they apply. Article 2 covers the second half of every decision: whether the product in your hand delivers what the evidence tested.

Introduction

Every year, millions of people take cardiovascular supplements — fish oil, CoQ10, magnesium, plant sterols, B vitamins — on the basis of claims that sound scientifically credible. Most of those decisions rest on three things: a confident-sounding label, a single positive study cited out of context, and a biological mechanism that sounds reasonable. None of the three, on its own, is evidence that a supplement prevents heart attacks or strokes.

Many cardiovascular supplements are built on real biology — but biology is usually where the evidence stops. Most have never been tested in a trial large enough to show whether they prevent cardiovascular events, and among those that have been, several failed or caused harm. The ten questions in this article are a framework for telling those situations apart, and they apply to every supplement you will encounter, not just the ones in this series.

It helps to keep four levels of evidence distinct. A mechanism is a biologically plausible reason a supplement might work — a starting point, not a conclusion. A biomarker effect is a measurable change in something like LDL cholesterol, blood pressure, or an inflammatory marker — useful for understanding how a supplement works, but not proof of benefit. A clinical outcome is whether a supplement has been shown to reduce heart attacks, strokes, or cardiovascular death in human trials — the standard that matters most. And safety covers known risks, drug interactions, and product quality, which matter regardless of how strong the efficacy evidence is.

This article does not argue that supplements never work. It explains how to tell when meaningful cardiovascular outcome evidence exists for a specific claim and when it does not. The absence of large outcome trials is not proof that a supplement is useless — but it does mean the benefit is unproven, and in cardiovascular medicine that distinction matters.

What this means: If a supplement has not reduced heart attacks, strokes, or cardiovascular death in randomized trials, it has not been proven to protect your heart, no matter how convincing the biology sounds.

“Studied” Is Not the Same as “Proven”

When a label says “clinically studied,” it is making a statement about research activity, not about proof. In practice, “clinically studied” often means a small, short, or indirect trial rather than evidence of cardiovascular benefit. A supplement can be clinically studied and still rest on trials that were too small or too brief, that measured surrogate markers rather than clinical outcomes, that were never independently replicated, or that used a dose or formulation different from what is in the bottle. The distance between “studied” and “proven” is where most supplement marketing operates.

Before applying the questions below, identify the exact claim being made. A supplement may affect several things at once, and different claims require different evidence. Lowering LDL, reducing inflammation, improving blood flow, and preventing heart attacks are not the same claim — the first three are biomarker or mechanistic claims; only the last is a clinical outcome claim, and it requires a higher standard of proof. The most common ways marketing pushes past the evidence are implying disease prevention from biomarker data, generalizing beyond the studied dose or form, citing relative risk without absolute numbers, leaning on a single unreplicated study, and extrapolating from people with a documented deficiency to healthy adults with normal levels. That last move — taking evidence from deficient populations and applying it broadly — is one of the most reliable ways to make a weak case sound strong. Article 3 examines it.

The Ten Questions

This framework does not replace clinical decision-making; it helps you understand the evidence behind it. If a supplement claim cannot answer most of these clearly, the evidence is weaker than the marketing suggests.

1. What kind of study? Randomized trial, observational, or laboratory.
2. How many people? Underpowered trials miss real effects and overstate small ones.
3. How long? Trial duration must match the cardiovascular claim.
4. What was measured? Clinical events, or only surrogate markers (lab values used as stand-ins for outcomes such as heart attack or death).
5. What was the comparison? Placebo, no treatment, or another intervention.
6. Was blinding maintained? Open-label trials, where participants and researchers know who got the treatment, tend to overstate benefit.
7. How big was the effect? In absolute numbers, not just relative percentages.
8. Who funded it? Industry sponsorship correlates with favorable conclusions.
9. Has it been independently replicated? A single positive trial is a hypothesis.
10. Does the product match the study? Same dose, same chemical form, verified quality.

Questions 1 through 9 assess the evidence. Question 10 is a separate problem. Both must be answered before any supplement decision makes sense.

When Mechanism Meets Reality: The Vitamin E Story

The mechanism was elegant. Oxidized LDL drives atherosclerosis; vitamin E is a potent antioxidant; therefore vitamin E should prevent heart disease. The biology was real and well understood, and observational studies supported it — people with higher vitamin E intake had fewer cardiovascular events. Millions of Americans began supplementing.

Then the randomized trials arrived. HOPE (2000) randomized 9,541 high-risk patients to 400 IU of natural-source vitamin E daily or placebo over a mean of 4.5 years, and found no reduction in heart attacks, strokes, or cardiovascular death. (1) GISSI-Prevenzione (1999) tested vitamin E in 11,324 patients who had recently had a heart attack, with no cardiovascular benefit. (2) The Women’s Health Study (2005) followed 39,876 women on 600 IU every other day for roughly ten years, with no reduction in major cardiovascular events. (3)

Then meta-analysis found something worse: high-dose vitamin E, at 400 IU or more daily, was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. (4) Extended follow-up in HOPE-TOO showed increased rates of heart failure and heart-failure hospitalization. (5)

The mechanism was plausible. The observational data were convincing. The randomized trials showed no benefit and a signal of harm. In cardiovascular medicine, this is not an unusual outcome — it is the common one when a promising intervention finally meets rigorous testing.

Vitamin E through the Ten Questions

Vitamin E is the clearest worked example of the framework: a case where every question can be answered, and the answers all point the same way.

The verdict: high-quality evidence, consistently negative, with a signal of harm at high doses. This is the cleanest “no” the framework can produce — and yet, two decades on, vitamin E is still widely sold and taken for heart health. The questions did not have to be invented to evaluate it. They only had to be applied. Article 17 covers vitamin E.

What this means: A compelling mechanism and strong observational data can still lead to an intervention that provides no benefit, or causes harm, when tested rigorously.

The Pattern Repeats

Vitamin E is not an outlier. It is a template.

Beta-carotene was promoted as an antioxidant that would prevent cancer and heart disease; the mechanism made sense and observational data supported it. Then trials arrived in high-risk groups. ATBC (1994) found that beta-carotene supplementation in male smokers was associated with more lung cancer and higher overall mortality. (6) CARET (1996) tested beta-carotene plus vitamin A in smokers and asbestos-exposed workers, found increased lung cancer and mortality, and was stopped early. (7) A supplement designed to prevent cancer increased it in exactly the people at highest risk.

Niacin is the most instructive case for anyone following cardiovascular medicine, because it was not a fringe product — it was a serious, guideline-adjacent lipid therapy used alongside statins for decades. It moved the biomarker better than almost anything available, raising HDL by 20 to 35%. Then AIM-HIGH (2011) added niacin to statin therapy and found no reduction in cardiovascular events despite the HDL rise; it was stopped for futility. (8) HPS2-THRIVE (2014) tested it in 25,673 patients and found no reduction in major vascular events, plus increased rates of diabetes, infection, bleeding, and muscle problems. (9) The number improved. The outcomes did not. Article 8 covers niacin.

Ineffective is not the only failure mode; some supplements cause direct harm. National surveillance data estimate roughly 23,000 US emergency-department visits a year from dietary-supplement adverse events, with cardiac symptoms — palpitations, chest pain, racing heart — common after weight-loss and energy products. (20) That is a different problem from a supplement that simply does nothing, and a reminder that “natural” does not mean safe.

The pattern at a glance

These cases are not isolated. They are a pattern documented in the cardiovascular literature for decades.

For contrast, here is what passing the test looks like:

Both vitamin E and statins moved the marker that observational data had flagged as relevant. Only one prevented heart attacks. That contrast is the entire lesson.

The Pattern Is Not Unique to Supplements

The same sequence — compelling rationale, encouraging early data, disappointing or harmful trial — runs through prescription drugs and surgery too. Not because medicine is careless, but because human biology resists simple interventions, and plausible mechanisms are poor predictors of outcomes.

Antiarrhythmic drugs after heart attack (CAST). After a heart attack, many patients develop premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) — extra beats associated with sudden cardiac death. Encainide and flecainide reliably suppressed them, and the reasoning was direct: dangerous arrhythmia, drug eliminates arrhythmia, patient safer. The marker moved exactly as intended. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial was meant to confirm the benefit. Instead it was stopped early: in the interim analysis that halted the trial, death from arrhythmia or cardiac arrest occurred in 4.5% of patients on the drugs versus 1.2% on placebo — roughly a 3.6-fold increase — and total mortality reached 7.7% versus 3.0%. (21) The drugs did exactly what they were designed to do. Suppressing the marker did not protect patients; it killed more of them. The lesson reshaped how cardiologists think about arrhythmia: suppressing a marker of risk is not the same as reducing risk.

Hormone replacement therapy (WHI). For decades, observational studies showed that postmenopausal women taking estrogen had substantially fewer heart attacks, and the mechanism was credible — estrogen improves lipids and reduces arterial stiffness. A landmark 1991 review pooled the epidemiologic evidence to a relative risk near 0.56, roughly half the rate of coronary disease among hormone users, and judged it unlikely to be explained by confounding. (22) Guidelines recommended HRT partly for heart protection, and millions of women took it for that reason. Then the Women’s Health Initiative randomized over 16,000 women to HRT or placebo and found a 29% higher rate of coronary heart disease; it was stopped early. (23) The explanation is instructive: women who chose HRT in observational studies were younger, healthier, and more health-conscious, and their better outcomes had little to do with the hormone. This is healthy-user bias at the largest possible scale — decades of data and millions of prescriptions, undone by one trial.

Internal mammary artery ligation (1959). In the 1950s, surgeons tied off the internal mammary arteries on the theory that it would redirect blood to the heart. Patients reported dramatic relief from angina, and the operation spread. Then two surgical teams ran sham trials: some patients received the real ligation, others only a skin incision, and neither group knew which. (24,25) Patients who got only the incision improved as much as those who got the real operation, and the procedure was abandoned.

What this means: Perceived improvement, even when dramatic and sustained, can occur with no active treatment effect. Placebo responses in pain and symptom trials are large enough to end an established operation — and large enough to make a supplement feel like it is working when it is not.

The relevance to supplements is not that supplements are uniquely suspect. It is that no area of medicine is exempt from this pattern, which is exactly why modern medicine relies on controlled trials rather than mechanism or early data alone.

What Strong Evidence Actually Looks Like

After so many failures, it is fair to ask what success looks like. Cardiovascular medicine has interventions that cleared the bar, and they define the standard supplement claims are measured against.

Statins are the most extensively studied class of cardiovascular drug in history. The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S, 1994) was the first to show a statin reduced both coronary and all-cause mortality in patients with established coronary disease. Over a median 5.4 years in 4,444 patients, simvastatin cut all-cause mortality from 11.5% to 8.2% — a 30% relative reduction and a 3.3-percentage-point absolute one — with coronary mortality down 42% and major coronary events down 34%. (19) Statins were not adopted because they lowered LDL; they were adopted because trial after trial showed they reduced heart attacks and deaths. The cholesterol change was the mechanism. The event reduction was the proof.

What separates statins from nearly every supplement in this series is replication. Within fifteen years, more than 25 large randomized trials in over 170,000 patients — across different statins, populations, and research groups with no shared funding — confirmed and extended 4S. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration, pooling individual patient data, showed reductions in major vascular events proportional to the degree of LDL lowering, consistent in men and women, older and younger patients, and those with and without diabetes. (26) Antihypertensives follow the same pattern: decades of trials in hundreds of thousands of patients show that lowering blood pressure, through several drug classes, reduces stroke, heart attack, heart failure, and cardiovascular death.

This is what strong cardiovascular evidence looks like: hard clinical endpoints rather than biomarker changes; large trials with thousands of patients each and hundreds of thousands across replications; independent replication by researchers with no shared financial interest; effect sizes large enough to matter in absolute terms; and consistency across populations. Very few supplements have been tested this way. That contrast is not a value judgment — it is the reason guidelines recommend statins and antihypertensives with high confidence and most supplements with little or none, and it is why “not yet proven” is rarely the same as “probably works.”

Study Design: The Hierarchy

Questions 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6

The type of study determines how much weight its results can carry.

Randomized controlled trials are the standard for establishing whether something works. Assigning participants to supplement or placebo by chance eliminates confounding — the problem that supplement users differ from non-users in ways that independently affect outcomes (people who take supplements also tend to exercise more, eat better, and engage more with their health). Blinding prevents placebo effects and biased assessment. (10)

Observational studies watch what happens to people who choose to take a supplement versus those who do not. Because those groups differ systematically, observational data can make a supplement look beneficial when the real benefit comes from the lifestyle, not the pill — the healthy-user bias behind the HRT reversal above. (11) Observational data generates hypotheses; it cannot establish causation.

Preclinical research in cells and animals can suggest mechanisms and justify further study, but most compounds that work in a laboratory fail in people.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine studies to increase precision, but they are only as good as the trials inside them. Combining weak studies yields a precise estimate of an unreliable answer, and a meta-analysis inherits whatever bias sits in its inputs.

The shorthand: lab studies suggest, observational studies hypothesize, randomized trials decide.

Endpoints: The Critical Distinction

Question 4

This is where supplement marketing most reliably misleads. Clinical endpoints are outcomes patients care about — heart attack, stroke, hospitalization, death. Surrogate endpoints are markers assumed to predict them — LDL, blood pressure, C-reactive protein, homocysteine. Surrogates help explain how a supplement works; they are not proof that it helps.

The homocysteine story makes the gap concrete. Elevated homocysteine correlated with cardiovascular risk; B vitamins reliably lowered it; the hypothesis was logical. Large randomized trials tested it directly, and it did not work. (13,14) The marker moved. The disease did not. Article 16 covers B vitamins and homocysteine.

There is a structural reason this happens. Cardiovascular disease develops over decades, so a 12-week trial showing an 8% drop in LDL cannot answer a question that needs 5 to 10 years to settle. Those are different scientific questions, and supplement marketing routinely answers the short one while implying the long one. If a study shows only a biomarker change, the honest conclusion is that the supplement may move a number — not that it affects cardiovascular outcomes.

Effect Size: Absolute vs. Relative

Question 7

Supplement marketing favors relative risk reduction; the absolute numbers are what matter. A 50% reduction sounds dramatic, but 50% of what? If 2 people per 1,000 have an event on placebo and 1 per 1,000 on the supplement, that is a 50% relative reduction — and just one fewer event per 1,000 people treated.

The same percentage means very different things depending on baseline risk. A 25% relative reduction is 5 fewer events per 1,000 in a high-risk group (20 dropping to 15) but only 1 fewer per 1,000 in a low-risk group (4 dropping to 3). Absolute risk reduction tells you the real difference between groups; number needed to treat (NNT) tells you how many people must take something for one to benefit. When a claim gives only a relative percentage, ask for the absolute numbers — if they are missing, there is usually a reason. Relative percentages describe the math. Absolute numbers describe real people.

Bias: The Systematic Distortions

Questions 8 and 9

Several biases tend to make supplements look better than they are. Publication bias: positive studies are published more readily than null ones, so the visible literature is skewed favorable and meta-analyses overrepresent positive results. (12) This is a structural feature of publishing, not fraud. Funding bias: industry-sponsored research is more likely to reach favorable conclusions, not necessarily through misconduct but through subtle choices in design, analysis, and reporting. (17,18) A single sponsor-funded positive trial is a starting point; independent replication is what turns it into evidence. Healthy-user bias: in observational studies, supplement users are systematically healthier in ways that affect outcomes, and the supplement gets credit for the lifestyle — the WHI reversal at scale. (11)

The Product Problem

Question 10

Even when a trial shows genuine benefit, the question becomes whether the product on the shelf is what was studied. Article 2 covers this. Dose: many effects are dose-dependent, so a study using 2,000 mg is not evidence for a 200 mg product. Formulation: bioavailability varies between chemical forms of the same compound, and a label may not say which form is present. Quality: supplements are not required to demonstrate efficacy before sale, and independent investigations have documented label inaccuracy and contamination, including products spiked with undeclared pharmaceutical ingredients — some of them drugs withdrawn for cardiovascular risk. (15,16)

A common real-world failure: someone reads that “magnesium lowers blood pressure,” confirms it in a trial that used 600 mg of magnesium citrate, and buys a bottle of magnesium oxide at 250 mg. The dose is different and the form absorbs differently, so the evidence — accurate at the level of the trial — no longer applies to the bottle. This is one of the most common ways a supplement decision fails even when the underlying research is real. Article 10 covers magnesium.

Red Flags

These patterns suggest a claim may be outrunning its evidence. None proves a product useless on its own, but several together carry cumulative weight.

Why Clinicians Are Skeptical

Clinicians who treat cardiovascular disease have watched this sequence play out across their careers — promising biology, supportive observational data, an enthusiastic reception, then a large trial that does not deliver. That is why experienced cardiologists rarely change practice on mechanism alone. It is not reflexive negativity; it is repeated experience of widely accepted interventions later shown to provide no benefit, or harm.

This is not anti-supplement. Cardiovascular medicine is built on outcome trials — heart attacks prevented, strokes averted, lives saved — and the treatments at the foundation of practice earned their place by clearing that bar. The standard applied to supplements is the same standard applied to any new intervention before outcome data exist. When that evidence exists, a supplement is treated like any other intervention with it. When it does not, recommending one anyway is not caution; it is overclaiming.

If you are already taking a supplement: the questions apply just as directly, and the issue is not whether you made a mistake. Look up the specific supplement in this series, check whether your product matches the dose and form that was actually studied, and if the evidence is weak or the product does not match, treat that as useful information — a reason to talk with your physician about whether it belongs in your regimen, not a reason for alarm.

The Bottom Line

The Ten Questions are not a filter designed to make supplements fail. They are the standard applied to every cardiovascular intervention, and most treatments that genuinely saved lives have cleared them. Vitamin E, beta-carotene, niacin, and hormone replacement were not fringe ideas — they were mainstream, biologically plausible, and tested in tens of thousands of patients. They failed, or caused harm, when properly tested. That is the precedent, and it is why the questions matter.

Here is what they look like in two minutes of use. You are holding a bottle of CoQ10 labeled “supports heart health” and “clinically studied.” Before buying it, ask: Has this been tested in a randomized trial measuring heart attacks or cardiovascular death, not just CoQ10 blood levels? In what population? At this dose and form? Has the result been replicated? For most CoQ10 products marketed for general cardiovascular protection, the answers are no, no, unknown, and no — the best evidence, from the Q-SYMBIO trial, is in patients with established heart failure, not healthy people buying it off a shelf. (27) Article 5 covers CoQ10. That distinction is exactly what the questions are built to surface, and it changes the decision.

When a label cites a mechanism, an observational study, or a single biomarker trial, it is not answering these questions — it is avoiding them. Marketing answers one set of questions; evidence answers another. The Ten Questions are how you tell which one you are actually deciding on.

Article 2 examines how supplements reach the market without proving efficacy, and how to judge whether the product in your hand matches what was studied.

Key Terms

Absolute risk reduction: The arithmetic difference in event rates between groups — how many people actually benefit — rather than the percentage change relative to baseline.

Clinical endpoint: An outcome patients care about (heart attack, stroke, hospitalization, death). The standard for meaningful cardiovascular evidence.

Confounding: When other factors (exercise, diet, income, health engagement) influence outcomes in ways that make it appear the supplement is responsible when it is not.

Healthy-user bias: The tendency of people who take supplements to be systematically healthier in ways that affect cardiovascular outcomes independently of the supplement. A major driver of misleading observational data.

Number needed to treat (NNT): How many people must take an intervention for one additional person to benefit. The same relative risk reduction can mean very different NNTs depending on baseline risk.

Publication bias: The tendency of positive studies to be published and null results to go unreported, skewing the available literature toward favorable findings.

Randomized controlled trial (RCT): A study that assigns participants to intervention or placebo by chance, eliminating confounding and enabling causal inference. The evidentiary standard in cardiovascular medicine.

Surrogate endpoint: A measurable marker (cholesterol, blood pressure, CRP) used as a proxy for clinical outcomes. Changes in surrogates do not reliably predict changes in events, as the homocysteine and niacin stories show.

Systematic review / meta-analysis: A formal synthesis of multiple studies. Only as reliable as the trials inside it, and subject to publication bias — precision and validity are not the same thing.

References

1. Yusuf S, Dagenais G, Pogue J, Bosch J, Sleight P. Vitamin E supplementation and cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(3):154–160.
2. GISSI-Prevenzione Investigators. Dietary supplementation with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E after myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1999;354(9177):447–455.
3. Lee IM, Cook NR, Gaziano JM, et al. Vitamin E in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer: the Women’s Health Study. JAMA. 2005;294(1):56–65.
4. Miller ER 3rd, Pastor-Barriuso R, Dalal D, Riemersma RA, Appel LJ, Guallar E. Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(1):37–46.
5. Lonn E, Bosch J, Yusuf S, et al. Effects of long-term vitamin E supplementation on cardiovascular events and cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;293(11):1338–1347.
6. The Alpha-Tocopherol Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(15):1029–1035.
7. Omenn GS, Goodman GE, Thornquist MD, et al. Effects of a combination of beta carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(18):1150–1155.
8. AIM-HIGH Investigators. Niacin in patients with low HDL cholesterol levels receiving intensive statin therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(24):2255–2267.
9. HPS2-THRIVE Collaborative Group. Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(3):203–212.
10. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet. 2002;359(9305):515–519.
11. Shrank WH, Patrick AR, Brookhart MA. Healthy user and related biases in observational studies of preventive interventions: a primer for physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(5):546–550.
12. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
13. Lonn E, Yusuf S, Arnold MJ, et al. Homocysteine lowering with folic acid and B vitamins in vascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(15):1567–1577.
14. Bønaa KH, Njølstad I, Ueland PM, et al. Homocysteine lowering and cardiovascular events after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(15):1578–1588.
15. Starr RR. Too little, too late: ineffective regulation of dietary supplements in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(3):478–485.
16. Tucker J, Fischer T, Upjohn L, Mazzera D, Kumar M. Unapproved pharmaceutical ingredients included in dietary supplements associated with US Food and Drug Administration warnings. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(6):e183337.
17. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326(7400):1167–1170.
18. Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, Wypij D, Ludwig DS. Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med. 2007;4(1):e5.
19. Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet. 1994;344(8934):1383–1389.
20. Geller AI, Shehab N, Weidle NJ, et al. Emergency department visits for adverse events related to dietary supplements. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(16):1531–1540.
21. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Investigators. Preliminary report: effect of encainide and flecainide on mortality in a randomized trial of arrhythmia suppression after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1989;321(6):406–412.
22. Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Estrogen replacement therapy and coronary heart disease: a quantitative assessment of the epidemiologic evidence. Prev Med. 1991;20(1):47–63.
23. Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women. JAMA. 2002;288(3):321–333.
24. Cobb LA, Thomas GI, Dillard DH, Merendino KA, Bruce RA. An evaluation of internal-mammary-artery ligation by a double-blind technic. N Engl J Med. 1959;260(22):1115–1118.
25. Dimond EG, Kittle CF, Crockett JE. Comparison of internal mammary artery ligation and sham operation for angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol. 1960;5:483–486.
26. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet. 2010;376(9753):1670–1681.
27. Mortensen SA, Rosenfeldt F, Kumar A, et al. The effect of coenzyme Q10 on morbidity and mortality in chronic heart failure: results from Q-SYMBIO: a randomized double-blind trial. JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2(6):641–649.

HeartBuddi • Your heart. Own it.