Consumption of total dietary fat and cardiovascular disease.

Total dietary fat and total cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Results: Data was provided by 5 cohorts, including 2,500 cases.
No (non)significant associations were found. The RR was available from 4 cohorts. The average RR = 1.05.
Effect modification: No data was found.
Subjects with prevalent disease: One cohort included subjects with CHD only (Erkkilä AT [28]), and another cohort included women with type 2 diabetes only (Tanasescu M [13]). No associations were found.

Conclusion: No associations were found. No evidence was found for an association between total fat consumption and total cardiovascular disease.

Prospective studies of dietary fat and total cardiovascular disease:
AuthorCohort nameCasesEnd pointRelative Risk (RR)
45) Houston DK (2010)The Health ABC Study203RiskHR = 1.26 (0.85-1.86; P = 0.24).
32) Laaksonen DE (2005)The Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study78MortalityNo significant association.
31) Leosdottir M (2007)The Malmö Diet and Cancer Study973 men, and

583 women
RiskMen: HR = 1.02 (0.84-1.23; P = 0.8).

Women: HR = 0.98 (0.77-1.25; P = 0.8).
28) Erkkilä AT (2003)The Finnish Cohort of the EUROASPIRE Study44RiskRR = 1.22 (0.89-1.67; P = 0.22).
13) Tanasescu M (2004)The Nurses' Health Study619RiskRR = 1.09 (0.81-1.47; P = 0.56).
Total number of cases: 2,500Average RR = 1.05

Total dietary fat and coronary heart disease (CHD).

Results:
Coronary heart disease risk: Data was provided by 21 cohorts, including 7,678 cases.
Significantly increased risks were found in 4 (sub)cohorts which were all of (very) small size (Reed DM [3]), Posner BM [5], Esrey KL [18], Boniface DR [24]), but significant protective effects were found in 3 (sub)cohorts (Marr JW [6], Soinio M [26], Corella D [44]). RR's were available from 12 cohorts. The average RR = 1.04.
Coronary heart disease mortality: Data was provided by 14 cohorts, including 2,045 cases.
Significantly increased risks were found in 3 subcohorts which were all of very small size (Esrey KL [18], Boniface DR [24], Xu J [35]), but a significant protective effect was found in another subcohort which also was of very small size (Soinio M [26]). RR's were available from 7 cohorts. The average RR = 1.03.
Effect modification:

  • Four cohorts stratified results by age (Posner BM [5], Esrey KL [18], Jakobsen MU [29], Xu J [35]). Cut-off points for the age groups varied from 56-60 years. Risks were consistently higher among the lower age groups. But all cohorts were of very small size, and no associations were found among 3 other cohorts including younger (aged ≤ 60 years) subjects only (Oglesby P [1], Halton TL [13], Fehily AM [14].
  • No consistent effect modification was found by sex (Knekt P [15], Boniface DR [24], Soinio M [26], Jakobsen MU [29], Leosdottir M [31], Xu J [35]).
  • No effect modification was found by diabetes (Xu J [35]), hypertension (Knekt P [15], Xu J [35]), or serum cholesterol (Knekt P [15], Xu J [35]).
  • No effect modification was found by other variables, including BMI (Oh K [13], Xu J [35]), smoking (Knekt P [15], Xu J [35]), urban/rural status (Garcia-Palmieri MR [4]), or alcohol, protein, and total energy intake (Xu J [35]).

Subjects with prevalent disease: One cohort included subjects with type 2 diabetes only (Soinio M [26]). A significant protective effect was found among women, but not men. No significant associations were found among subjects with CHD in 2 cohorts (Fehily AM [14], Erkkilä AT [28]).

Conclusion: Few significant associations were found, and these were mostly restricted to subgroups of the population, and to cohorts of (very) small size. Some evidence was found that the association might differ between age groups. No evidence was found for an association between total fat consumption and coronary heart disease.

Prospective studies of dietary fat and coronary heart disease risk:
AuthorCohort nameCasesEnd pointRelative Risk (RR)
44) Corella D (2010)The Spanish part of The EPIC Study534RiskA significant protective effect (P = 0.03).
35) Xu J (2006)The Strong Heart Study403RiskHR = 1.03 (0.77-1.40; P = 0.97).
34) Ness AR (2005)The Boyd Orr Cohort298MortalityRR = 0.56 (0.30-1.08; P = 0.07).
31) Leosdottir M (2007)The Malmö Diet and Cancer Study908

(no data for men vs women)
RiskMen: HR = 0.99 (0.78-1.25; P = 0.8).

Women: HR = 0.77 (0.55-1.08; P = 0.1).
29) Jakobsen MU (2004)4 Danish Cohorts228 men, and

98 women
RiskMen: HR = 1.00 (0.91-1.10).

Women: HR = 1.10 (0.95-1.28).
28) Erkkilä AT (2003)The Finnish Cohort of the EUROASPIRE Study34RiskRR = 1.05 (0.73-1.52; P = 0.80).
26) Soinio M (2003)No cohort name defined41 men, and

43 women
Mortality (men), and

risk (women)
Men: No significant association.

Women: A significant protective effect (P = < 0.001).
24) Boniface DR (2002)The Health and Lifestyle Survey98 men, and

57 women
MortalityMen: RR = 1.01 (0.93-1.10; P = 0.85).

Women: RR = 1.19 (1.03-1.37; P = 0.02).
22) Bostick RM (1999)The Iowa Women's Health Study387MortalityNo significant association.
18) Esrey KL (1996)The Lipid Research Clinics Prevalence Follow-Up Study52 aged < 60, and

40 aged ≥ 60
MortalityAged < 60: RR = 1.04 (1.01-1.08; P = < 0.05).

Aged ≥ 60: RR = 0.99 (0.95-1.03).
16) Kromhout D (1995)No cohort name defined58MortalityNo significant association.
15) Knekt P (1994)The Finnish Mobile Clinic Health Cohort186 men, and

58 women
MortalityMen: A nonsignificantly increased risk (P = 0.06).

Women: No significant association (P = 0.40).
14) Fehily AM (1993)The Caerphilly Study137RiskRO = 1.3 (P = NS).
13) Halton TL (2006)The Nurses' Health Study1,994RiskRR = 0.99 (0.79-1.23; P = 0.86).
13) Ascherio A (1996)The Health Professionals Follow Up Study734RiskRR = 1.02 (0.78-1.34; P = 0.42).
8) Kushi LH (1985)The Ireland-Boston Diet-Heart Study110MortalityNo significant association (P = 0.12).
6) Marr JW (1981)No cohort name defined50RiskA significant protective effect (P = < 0.01).
5) Posner BM (1991)The Framingham Study99 aged < 56, and

114 aged ≥ 56
RiskAged < 56: RR = 0.74 (0.58-0.94) for low vs high consumption.

Aged ≥ 56: RR = 0.99 (0.85-1.15) for low vs high consumption.
5) Gordon T (1981)The Puerto Rico Heart Health program163RiskNo significant association.
3) Reed DM (1990)The Honolulu Heart Program666RiskRR = 1.3 (1.0-1.6; P = < 0.05).
1) Oglesby P (1963)The Western Electric Study88RiskNo significant association.
Total number of cases: 7,678Average RR = 1.04


Prospective studies of dietary fat and coronary heart disease mortality:
AuthorCohort nameCasesRelative Risk (RR)
35) Xu J (2006)The Strong Heart Study46 aged < 60, and

92 aged ≥ 60
Aged < 60: HR = 3.57 (1.21-10.49; P = 0.01).

Aged ≥ 60: HR = 0.77 (0.41-1.45; P = 0.24).
34) Ness AR (2005)The Boyd Orr Cohort298RR = 0.56 (0.30-1.08; P = 0.07).
28) Erkkilä AT (2003)The Finnish cohort of the EUROASPIRE Study16RR = 1.03 (0.63-1.70; P = 0.90).
26) Soinio M (2003)No cohort name defined41 men, and

24 women
Men: No significant association.

Women: A significant protective effect (P = 0.02).
24) Boniface DR (2002)The Health and Lifestyle Survey98 men, and

57 women
Men: RR = 1.01 (0.93-1.10; P = 0.85).

Women: RR = 1.19 (1.03-1.37; P = 0.02).
22) Bostick RM (1999)The Iowa Women's Health Study387No significant association.
18) Esrey KL (1996)The Lipid Research Clinics Prevalence Follow-Up Study52 aged < 60, and

40 aged ≥ 60
Aged < 60: RR = 1.04 (1.01-1.08; P = < 0.05).

Aged ≥ 60: RR = 0.99 (0.95-1.03).
16) Kromhout D (1995)No cohort name defined58No significant association.
15) Knekt P (1994)The Finnish Mobile Clinic Health Cohort186 men, and

58 women
Men: A nonsignificantly increased risk (P = 0.06).

Women: No significant association (P = 0.40).
13) Ascherio A (1996)The Health Professionals Follow Up Study229RR = 1.22 (0.75-2.00; P = 0.31).
8) Kushi LH (1985)The Ireland-Boston Diet-Heart Study110No significant association (P = 0.12).
5) Gillman MW (1997)The Framingham Study83RR = 1.03 (0.95-1.12).
5) Gordon T (1981)The Puerto Rico Heart Health Program71No significant association.
3) McGee DL (1985)The Honolulu Heart Program99No significant association.
Total number of cases: 2,045Average RR = 1.03

Total dietary fat and stroke.

Results:
Total stroke: Data was provided by 8 cohorts, including 1,572 cases.
A significantly increased risk was found in one cohort of small size (Simon JA [12]). No other associations were found. RR's were available from 6 cohorts. The average RR = 1.00.
Ischemic stroke: Data was provided by 7 cohorts, including 1,782 cases.
A significant protective effect was found in one cohort of very small size (Gillman MW [5]). No other associations were found. RR's were available from 6 cohorts. The average RR = 0.97 (excluding incomplete data from Leosdottir M [31]).
Hemorrhagic stroke: Data was provided by 4 cohorts, including 419 cases.
A significant protective effect was found against intraparenchymal hemmorhage in one cohort of very small size (Iso H [25]). The average RR = 1.00.
Effect modification: No evidence was found for effect modification by ethnicity, age, or BMI (Boden-Albala B [41]).
Subjects with prevalent disease: No data was found.

Conclusion: Few associations were found, and these were restricted to cohorts of (very) small size. No evidence was found for an association between total fat consumption and stroke.

Prospective studies of dietary fat and total stroke:
AuthorCohort nameCasesEnd pointRelative Risk (RR)
34) Ness AR (2005)The Boyd Orr Cohort83MortalityRR = 0.76 (0.26-2.16; P = 0.2).
20) Ross RK (1997)No cohort name defined245MortalityRR = 1.3 (0.9-1.8).
13) He K (2003)The Health Professionals Follow Up Study455 ischaemic stroke, and

125 haemorrhagic stroke
RiskIschaemic stroke: RR = 0.91 (0.65-1.28; P = 0.77).

Haemorrhagic stroke: RR = 1.16 (0.58-2.32; P = 0.83).
12) Simon JA (1995)The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial96RiskA significantly increased risk (P = < 0.05).
10) Khaw KT (1987)The Rancho Bernardo Cohort24MortalityRR = 1.08 (0.59-1.97; P = 0.80).
9) Seino F (1997)The Shibata Study141RiskRR = 0.94 (0.48-1.85; P = 0.44).
7) Keli SO (1994)The Zutphen Study42RiskNo significant association.
3) Reed DM (1990)The Honolulu Heart Program250 thromboembolic stroke, and

111 hemorrhagic stroke
RiskThromboembolic stroke: RR = 0.8 (0.6-1.2).

Hemorrhagic stroke: RR = 1.2 (0.7-1.9).
Total number of cases: 1,572Average RR = 1.00


Prospective studies of dietary fat and ischemic stroke:
AuthorCohort nameCasesEnd pointRelative Risk (RR)
41) Boden-Albala B (2009)The Northern Manhattan Study142RiskHR = 1.6 (0.6-3.9).
31) Leosdottir M (2007)The Malmö Diet and Cancer Study648

(no data for men vs women)
RiskMen: HR = 0.97 (0.71-1.33; P = 0.9).

Women: HR = 1.12 (0.79-1.59; P = 0.4).
30) Sauvaget C (2004)The Adult Health Study60MortalityRH = 0.75 (0.37-1.54; P = 0.46).
25) Iso H (2003)No cohort name defined166RiskNo significant association.
13) He K (2003)The Health Professionals Follow Up Study455RiskRR = 0.91 (0.65-1.28; P = 0.77).
5) Gillman MW (1997)The Framingham Study61RiskRR = 0.84 (0.75-0.92).
3) Reed DM (1990)The Honolulu Heart Program250RiskRR = 0.8 (0.6-1.2).
Total number of cases: 1,782Average RR = 0.97


Prospective studies of dietary fat and hemorrhagic stroke:
AuthorCohort nameCasesEnd pointRelative Risk (RR)
25) Iso H (2003)No cohort name defined68 intraparenchymal hemorrhage, and

41 subarachnoid hemorrhage
RiskIntraparenchymal hemorrhage: RR = 0.46 (0.20-1.04; P = 0.05).

Subarachnoid hemorrhage: No significant association.
13) He K (2003)The Health Professionals Follow Up Study125Haemorrhagic stroke riskRR = 1.16 (0.58-2.32; P = 0.83).
13) Iso H (2001)The Nurses' Health Study74Intraparenchymal hemorrhage riskRR = 0.92 (0.45-1.88; P = 0.77).
3) Reed DM (1990)The Honolulu Heart Program111Hemorrhagic stroke riskRR = 1.2 (0.7-1.9).
Total number of cases: 419Average RR = 1.00