Beta Sitosterol by The Vitamin Shoppe

NatMed Pro Brand Evidence-based Rating (NMBER)

Report an Adverse Reaction to Beta Sitosterol

Product Information hide details

Serving Size 1 Tablet(s)

Ingredients	Amount Per Serving
Calcium (Ca) (Dicalcium Phosphate) (Calcium (Form: as Dicalcium Phosphate) )	140 mg
Phytosterol Concentrate (providing) (Phytosterol Concentrate Note: providing )	300 mg
Beta Sitosterol (Naturally occuring, values are typical.) (Beta Sitosterol Note: Naturally occuring, values are typical. )	120 mg
Campesterol (Naturally occuring, values are typical.) (Campesterol Note: Naturally occuring, values are typical. )	60 mg
Stigmasterol (Naturally occuring, values are typical.) (Stigmasterol Note: Naturally occuring, values are typical. )	40 mg
Citrus Pectin (Citrus spp. ) (fruit)	30 mg

Other Ingredients

Magnesium Stearate, Croscarmellose Sodium, Stearic Acid (Alt. Name: C18:0), Silicon Dioxide (Alt. Name: SiO2), Microcrystalline Cellulose, Aqueous Coating

hide details

Effectiveness view details

Below is general information about the effectiveness of the known ingredients contained in the product Beta Sitosterol. Some ingredients may not be listed. This information does NOT represent a recommendation for or a test of this specific product as a whole.

BETA-SITOSTEROL (Beta Sitosterol)

LIKELY EFFECTIVE

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Oral beta-sitosterol is beneficial for most symptoms of BPH. Details: Taking beta-sitosterol 60-130 mg orally in 2-3 divided doses daily for up to 18 months significantly improves urinary symptoms, increases maximum urinary flow, and decreases postvoid residual urine volume; however, it does not affect prostate size (5327,5328,5329,7195,7198,34975). Additionally, one study suggests that taking an enriched form of saw palmetto oil (Vispo) 200 mg containing 3% beta-sitosterol twice daily for 12 weeks seems to be more effective than standard saw palmetto oil containing 0.3% beta-sitosterol for reducing some measures of overall symptoms of BPH (104803). Although some preliminary research shows no benefit of beta-sitosterol on symptoms of BPH, the variability in doses used, the short duration of treatment, the small study sizes, and the differing severity of disease at baseline limit the reliability of these latter results (35124,96784).
Hypercholesterolemia. Oral beta-sitosterol is beneficial for hypercholesterolemia. Details: Taking beta-sitosterol orally significantly reduces total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, but has little or no effect on high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. Beta-sitosterol 0.65-1.5 grams twice daily has been used, typically in conjunction with a low-fat diet (6668,7195,112081). The effects of combination formulations containing beta-sitosterol have also been evaluated in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Some preliminary clinical research in these patients shows that taking a combination of soy protein 8 grams plus beta-sitosterol 2 grams daily for 40 days lowers LDL cholesterol by 17-20 mg/dL, but does not improve triglyceride or HDL cholesterol levels, when compared to baseline (35013,35039). Other clinical research shows that taking a combination of beta-sitosterol 2.5 grams daily along with cholestyramine (Questran, Bristol Myer Squibb) 8 grams daily for 12 weeks reduces total cholesterol by about 23 mg/dL and LDL cholesterol by 15 mg/dL when compared to baseline, but is less effective than atorvastatin 10 or 80 mg daily (35100).

POSSIBLY EFFECTIVE

Coronary heart disease (CHD). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved an authorized health claim for dietary plant sterols, when taken in doses of at least 3.4 grams daily as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, for reducing the risk of CHD. Details: In 2010, the FDA authorized a health claim stating that consuming at least 3.4 grams of plant sterols daily, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease (102365). This health claim is based on evidence showing that plant sterols can lower cholesterol levels. However, there is currently no evidence directly linking dietary intake of plant sterols with a reduced risk for developing CHD.
Familial hypercholesterolemia. Oral beta-sitosterol, in combination with a cholesterol-lowering diet, seems to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. However, it doesn't seem to work as well as sitostanol or bezafibrate. Details: Preliminary clinical research shows that taking beta-sitosterol for 1-4 months while following a cholesterol-lowering diet reduces total cholesterol by 6% to 13% and LDL cholesterol by 6% to 20% in adult and pediatric patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. Beta-sitosterol 2.5-21.1 grams taken in up to three divided doses daily for 1-3 months has been used in adults. Beta-sitosterol 2-4 grams three times daily for 3 months has been used in children and adolescents (3889,5331,5332,5333,35067). Some research suggests that the optimal dose of beta-sitosterol is 6 grams daily; higher doses do not appear to be more effective (5333). However, some research in pediatric patients shows that beta-sitosterol can also decrease levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (5332) and that beta-sitosterol appears to be less effective for reducing LDL cholesterol when compared to sitostanol (3889). Furthermore, beta-sitosterol does not appear to improve triglyceride levels (5333). Some research has compared beta-sitosterol to cholesterol-lowering medication. In children with familial hypercholesterolemia, taking beta-sitosterol 1 grams three times daily in combination with the fibrate drug bezafibrate 200 mg once daily for 24 months reduces cholesterol as effectively as taking bezafibrate 200 mg twice daily. However, taking beta-sitosterol 2 grams three times daily is less effective for lowering LDL cholesterol when compared with bezafibrate 200 mg twice daily (5334).

INSUFFICIENT RELIABLE EVIDENCE to RATE

Allergic rhinitis (hay fever). Although there is interest in using oral beta-sitosterol for allergic rhinitis, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of beta-sitosterol for this condition.
Androgenic alopecia. Oral beta-sitosterol has only been evaluated in combination with other ingredients; its effect when used alone is unclear. Details: A small clinical study in males with androgenic alopecia shows that a combination of beta-sitosterol 50 mg plus saw palmetto extract 200 mg taken twice daily for an average of 4.6 months improves subjective scores of hair quantity and quality when compared with baseline (15550). The validity of this finding is limited by the lack of a comparator group.
Asthma. Although there is interest in using oral beta-sitosterol for asthma, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of beta-sitosterol for this condition.
Burns. Topical beta-sitosterol has only been evaluated in combination with other ingredients; its effect when used alone is unclear. Details: Preliminary clinical research shows that applying an ointment containing sesame oil, beta-sitosterol, berberine, and other plant ingredients (MEBO) is as effective as applying silver sulfadiazine dressing twice daily for healing burns and preventing bacterial infection (13526). Furthermore, this ointment appears to be more effective than povidone-iodine plus bepanthenol cream for reducing pain. The ointment can also shorten the hospital stay of these patients by almost one day when compared with povidone-iodine plus bepanthenol (35118). However, when used for second-degree facial burns, this ointment increases healing time by about 2 days and worsens pain and discomfort when compared with a specific dressing containing ionic silver (Aquacel Ag Hydrofiber) (35117). The ointment has been applied to partial-thickness burns as a thick layer every 4-12 hours for up to 18 days or until release from the hospital in patients aged 2 years and older (13526,35117,35118).
Cancer. It is unclear if dietary beta-sitosterol is beneficial for cancer prevention. Details: A meta-analysis of population research has found that although the highest intake of plant sterols is associated with a reduced risk of having cancer when compared with the lowest intake, there is no association between beta-sitosterol itself and cancer risk (106084). Also, population research suggests that dietary intake of beta-sitosterol does not affect the risk of colon cancer (34993).
Chronic prostatitis and chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). Although there is interest in using oral beta-sitosterol for prostatitis, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of beta-sitosterol for this condition.
Esophageal cancer. It is unclear if dietary beta-sitosterol intake influences the outcome of esophageal cancer. Details: In Chinese people with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the mortality rate does not seem to differ between those with the lowest versus the highest intake of dietary beta-sitosterol, measured five years before diagnosis (112082).
HIV/AIDS. Although there is interest in using oral beta-sitosterol for HIV/AIDS, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of beta-sitosterol for this condition.
Menopausal symptoms. Although there is interest in using oral beta-sitosterol for menopausal symptoms, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of beta-sitosterol for this purpose.
Migraine headache. Although there is interest in using oral beta-sitosterol for migraine headache, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of beta-sitosterol for this condition.
Obesity. It is unclear if oral beta-sitosterol is beneficial for obesity. Details: In Chinese adults, higher dietary intake of beta-sitosterol is inversely related to the risk of being overweight. The risk of central obesity specifically is linked to beta-sitosterol intake in males (112083).
Psoriasis. Although there is interest in using oral beta-sitosterol for psoriasis, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of beta-sitosterol for this condition.
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It is unclear if oral beta-sitosterol is beneficial for RA. Details: Preliminary clinical research shows that taking a specific supplement (Moducare) containing beta-sitosterol 20 mg and beta-sitosterol glucoside 0.2 mg three times daily for 24 weeks improves pain and symptoms in 28% to 85% of patients with RA when compared with baseline (35200). The validity of this finding is limited by the lack of a comparator group.
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Although there is interest in using oral beta-sitosterol for SLE, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of beta-sitosterol for this condition.
Thrombocytopenia. Although there is interest in using oral beta-sitosterol for thrombocytopenia, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of beta-sitosterol for this condition.
Tuberculosis. It is unclear if oral beta-sitosterol is beneficial for tuberculosis. Details: A small clinical trial shows that taking beta-sitosterol orally as an adjunct to conventional treatment for tuberculosis can increase lymphocyte counts when compared with placebo; however, beta-sitosterol does not seem to decrease the time to cure based on negative sputum culture (5337).
Upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). Although there is interest in using oral beta-sitosterol for upper respiratory infections such as bronchitis, common cold, exercise-induced respiratory infections, and influenza, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of beta-sitosterol for these conditions.
Wound healing. Although there is interest in using topical beta-sitosterol for wound healing, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of beta-sitosterol for this purpose. More evidence is needed to rate beta-sitosterol for these uses.

(Read more about BETA-SITOSTEROL)

CALCIUM

EFFECTIVE

Dyspepsia. Oral calcium carbonate is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an antacid. Details: Taking calcium carbonate orally as an antacid is effective for treating dyspepsia (1843). Calcium carbonate has FDA approval as an antacid.
Hyperkalemia. Intravenous calcium gluconate is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for preventing hyperkalemia-induced cardiac abnormalities. Details: Administering calcium gluconate intravenously can reverse electrocardiographic changes and arrhythmias induced by hyperkalemia (12946). Intravenous calcium gluconate is FDA-approved for preventing hyperkalemia-induced cardiac abnormalities.
Hypocalcemia. Oral calcium treats and prevents hypocalcemia. Intravenous calcium is used to treat severe hypocalcemia. Details: Taking calcium orally is effective for treating and preventing hypocalcemia. Intravenous calcium gluconate, acetate, gluceptate, or chloride is effective for severe hypocalcemia or hypocalcemic tetany (12928).
Kidney failure. Oral calcium carbonate or calcium acetate is used as a phosphate binder during kidney failure. Details: Taking calcium carbonate or calcium acetate orally is effective as a phosphate binder. Calcium acetate (PhosLo) appears to control hyperphosphatemia better than sevelamer (Renagel) (12943,12944,38990). Calcium citrate is not recommended for this purpose because it increases aluminum absorption and does not bind phosphate as efficiently as calcium acetate or calcium carbonate (21631). Some clinical research also shows that taking calcium orally reduces blood pressure in patients with kidney failure (975).

LIKELY EFFECTIVE

Corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. Oral calcium in combination with vitamin D prevents bone density loss that occurs during long-term treatment with corticosteroids. Details: Taking calcium in combination with vitamin D as adjunctive therapy seems to be effective for reducing bone mineral density loss in people using corticosteroids long-term (982,1046,1830,1831,1832,4462,4463,4464,4465,4466)(4467,12945,38493). One specific product used in clinical research is Oscal (Marion Merrel Dow Inc.), which contains elemental calcium 500 mg per tablet plus vitamin D 125 IU per tablet (982). Another product used is Oscal 250 + D (SmithKline Beecham Healthcare), which contains elemental calcium 250 mg and vitamin D 125 IU per tablet (1046).
Hyperparathyroidism. Oral calcium reduces parathyroid hormone levels in patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism due to kidney failure. Details: Taking calcium orally reduces parathyroid hormone levels in patients with kidney failure and secondary hyperparathyroidism (1827,1828,1829,39174,39425). In elderly women, the combination of calcium and vitamin D reverses secondary hyperparathyroidism and reduces hip fracture risk (8818). Also, population research suggests increased calcium intake from the diet and supplements reduces the risk of primary hyperparathyroidism in women. Supplemental intakes of at least 500 mg/day and dietary intakes of approximately 1100 mg/day are considered to be protective (91353).
Osteoporosis. Adequate calcium intake, from the diet and/or supplements, is recommended for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Details: The Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation (BHOF) recommends ensuring adequate calcium intake in line with the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) by age, along with adequate vitamin D intake, for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in adults over 50 years of age. Supplementation can be used to augment dietary intake when adequate dietary intake is not feasible (109425). In the US and Canada, foods containing at least 200 mg calcium with less phosphorous content than calcium can be labelled with a health claim regarding the relationship between adequate calcium intake and a reduced risk for osteoporosis (11940,102148). However, calcium supplementation is not recommended specifically for the primary prevention of osteoporosis. The US Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) states that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of vitamin D and calcium supplementation, alone or in combination, for the primary prevention of fractures in community dwelling adults without osteoporosis (95695). Also, calcium supplements do not seem to be effective for preventing loss of bone mineral density (BMD) during lactation (988), in patients who have had bone marrow transplantation (1817), or in patients who have had renal transplantation (4823,38736,38871). Maximal bone growth occurs in the teenage years, and then BMD in females remains relatively constant until age 30-40. After age 40, bone loss typically occurs at rates of 0.5% to 1% per year. In males, this occurs several decades later. Bone loss is more pronounced if dietary calcium intake is below the RDA, which is the case for many Americans (2571,2578). One meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in healthy children 7-14 years old shows that fortifying food with calcium 250-1000 mg daily for up to 24 months modestly improves femoral neck BMD, but not hip or spine BMD. However, the included trials did not supplement vitamin D (107232). During the 5 years immediately after menopause, calcium supplementation has very little effect on bone loss (2569,2570,2575,2576). The rapid loss of estrogen causes a high bone resorption rate, which increases serum calcium levels and therefore decreases intestinal absorption of calcium (2570). After this period, the typical rate of bone loss is 2% per year (2572,2576). Taking calcium 1000-1600 mg daily as carbonate, citrate, lactate gluconate, or citrate malate salt decreases this rate by 0.25% to 1% annually (977,979,981,2569,2571,2572,2575,2576,2578,6850)(38978,38980,39064). The greatest reductions (1% or more) are seen in the first 1-2 years of supplementation when bone remodeling foci can be filled (2569,2576). After this period, the differences in rate of loss between supplemented and non-supplemented females are closer to 0.25% per year (2569,2577). A meta-analysis of clinical evidence suggests that there is no additional benefit after 4 years (38980). Small clinical studies have found that continuous calcium supplementation at an average daily dose of 1050 mg, started after menopause and continued for 1.5-4 years, may reduce fracture rates by 26% when compared with no calcium supplementation. The largest of these studies was conducted in nursing home residents who also received daily vitamin D; the benefits of calcium, specifically, are unclear (39386). Some research also suggests that calcium and vitamin D improves primary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in some older individuals with osteoporosis, particularly the elderly and those who are no longer community dwelling (12930,38875,38849,39026,109471). However, not all research is positive. One large clinical trial in elderly adults with a low-trauma fracture show that taking calcium 1000 mg daily with or without vitamin D 800 IU daily for 2-7 years does not reduce the risk of a second fracture when compared with placebo (13073). Another clinical study shows that taking calcium 1000 mg daily plus vitamin D 800 IU daily does not prevent a second fracture in elderly patients, or prevent a first fracture in elderly patients with other risk factors such as low body weight (less than 58 kg, 127.6 pounds), smoking, family history of hip fracture, or fair or poor self-reported health (12929). Also, some exploratory research suggests that supplements may need to be continued indefinitely; in adults over 68 years of age, any effects of 2 years of calcium supplements on BMD appear to be lost within 2 years after discontinuing supplements (6853). Calcium has additive effects when used with other agents such as vitamin D, estrogens, or calcitonin. Whereas calcium alone generally reduces or prevents loss of BMD, combination with other agents can produce small increases in BMD ranging from 0.3% to 3.3% depending on the combination and dosages used (978,980,1836,2570,2571,2572,2576). However, one meta-analysis in healthy adults shows that fortifying foods with calcium 250-1000 mg daily, in conjunction with vitamin D supplementation, for up to 24 months does not improve BMD when compared with control (107232). The full potential of osteoporosis treatments cannot be realized without adequate calcium intake (2569,2570,2571,2572). Advise patients taking agents such as estrogens, calcitonin, bisphosphonates, or raloxifene (Evista) to ensure that their daily calcium intake meets the RDA. Use supplements if necessary. The usefulness of calcium in preventing osteoporosis in males is not as well-studied. Some observational research has found that calcium 870 mg daily is not associated with changes in BMD and bone loss in males (97201). However, clinical evidence suggests that taking calcium 1000 mg daily for 2 years might improve trabecular or cortical bone mass by 2% to 4% (980,8827,8873). Dietary supplementation with calcium and vitamin D seems to moderately reduce bone loss measured in the femoral neck, spine, and total body, and seems to reduce the incidence of nonvertebral fractures in older patients with osteopenia or low BMD (980).
Premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Adequate calcium intake seems to prevent symptoms of PMS. Details: There seems to be a link between low dietary calcium intake and symptoms of PMS (2004,6847,39007). Taking calcium 1000-1336 mg daily seems to significantly reduce depressed mood, water retention, and pain, especially if daily calcium intake is inadequate (1822,1823,1824,2004,95821). Calcium carbonate 1200 mg daily seems to decrease PMS symptom scores by about 18% when compared with placebo (1822). Increasing dietary calcium intake is also associated with a decreased risk of developing PMS. Consuming an average of 1283 mg of calcium per day from foods is associated with about a 30% lower risk of developing PMS compared with consuming an average of 529 mg daily (13094); however, taking calcium supplements does not appear to be associated with the risk of developing PMS.

POSSIBLY EFFECTIVE

Colorectal cancer. Oral calcium seems to be beneficial for preventing colorectal cancer, especially in those with adequate vitamin D levels and normal body mass index (BMI). Details: Population studies have found that increased intake of dietary or supplemental calcium is associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer and colorectal adenomas (1047,8820,12120,38951,98898,98899). Clinical trials and meta-analyses of clinical research also show that taking calcium supplements 1.2-2 grams daily for up to 4 years can reduce the risk of colorectal adenoma recurrence by up to 29% (970,12118,12950,15267,34596,38718,39042,95817). However, not all research has been positive. Some meta-analyses of clinical research or observational studies suggest that taking calcium does not reduce the risk of familial adenomatous polyposis or colorectal cancer (34596,39042,39349). Other contradictory research suggests that postmenopausal females who take calcium 1000 mg daily plus vitamin D 400 IU daily do not have a reduced risk of developing colorectal cancer (14290); however, this finding may not be reliable due to the high baseline intake of calcium in study participants. The reason for these conflicting findings is not entirely clear. Vitamin D might be an important factor. People with lower than average vitamin D levels do not seem to get any benefit from calcium supplements (12118). Also, one meta-analysis of previous trials suggests that taking calcium 1200 mg daily reduces the risk of colorectal adenomas in people with a normal BMI, but not in those who are overweight or obese (99715). Despite this conflicting evidence, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a qualified health claim in 2005 stating that calcium supplements may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer and colorectal adenomas. However, the FDA has determined that there is little scientific evidence to support this claim (102366).
Fetal bone mineralization. If calcium intakes are low during pregnancy, oral calcium seems to be beneficial for increasing fetal bone density. Details: With low dietary calcium intake (less than 562 mg elemental calcium daily) during pregnancy, calcium supplementation increases fetal bone mineralization and density. However, calcium supplementation does not offer any additional benefit if calcium intakes are adequate (3263,3264).
Hypertension. Oral calcium seems to reduce blood pressure by a small amount in adults with or without hypertension. However, it is unclear if this reduction is clinically significant. Details: Many clinical trials and observational studies, including a meta-analysis of 18 high-quality clinical trials, show that intake of calcium supplements or dietary calcium modestly reduces systolic blood pressure in patients with or without hypertension, usually around 1-2 mmHg. Calcium seems to be more effective for certain subpopulations of patients, such as those who are salt-sensitive or have low baseline dietary calcium intake (945,972,974,976,984,1818,1819,1820,1821,6852)(13138,14406,38803,39063,39094,39221,113920,113925). However, a large-scale clinical trial in postmenopausal females shows that taking vitamin D (cholecalciferol) 400 IU daily in combination with elemental calcium 1000 mg daily does not lower blood pressure or reduce the risk of developing hypertension (16714). Additionally, a meta-analysis of 8 clinical trials shows that taking calcium in combination with vitamin D for up to 7 years has no effect on blood pressure (98861). The validity of this finding is limited by the poor methodological quality of the included studies. Some observational research suggests that calcium can reduce the risk for hypertension. Population research in females aged 45 years and older suggests that higher intake of calcium from both diet and supplemental sources is linked to a lower risk of developing hypertension when compared to lower calcium intake (14265). In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a qualified health claim stating that calcium supplements may reduce the risk of hypertension. However, the FDA has concluded that this claim is based on supporting, rather than conclusive, evidence (102367). Research evaluating the effect of calcium supplementation during pregnancy on the child's blood pressure has yielded conflicting findings. A systematic review of 2 clinical studies and 3 observational studies found that calcium intake during pregnancy is associated with a 1-2 mmHg reduction in the systolic blood pressure of the offspring between the ages of 1-7 years (38852). However, a separate meta-analysis of 3 clinical studies shows that calcium intake during pregnancy does not reduce systolic or diastolic blood pressure in the offspring (113923).
Osteomalacia. Oral calcium seems to reverse osteomalacia caused by very low calcium intakes. Details: Osteomalacia is commonly caused by vitamin D deficiency; however, very low calcium intake can also lead to osteomalacia in children and adults. Calcium supplementation can reverse osteomalacia caused by calcium deficiency. Along with appropriate vitamin D supplementation, individuals at risk of osteomalacia need sufficient calcium intake (94819).
Pre-eclampsia. Oral calcium seems to reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia, especially in high-risk individuals and those with low baseline dietary calcium intake. Details: Although there is some conflicting evidence (971,38756), most clinical research shows that taking calcium orally 1-2 grams daily reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia (973,1833,8828,39043,39319,39426,97348,113919). A large clinical trial of 11,000 pregnant individuals in India and Tanzania shows that supplementation with 500 mg daily is similarly effective to 1500 mg daily (113908). Multiple meta-analyses which include 16-30 clinical studies have found that varying doses of calcium supplementation reduce the relative risk of pre-eclampsia by 46% to 51% when compared with placebo (97348,113909,113919). One of these meta-analyses found that for every 19 females treated with calcium, one episode of pre-eclampsia would be avoided (97348). Additionally, one of these meta-analyses found that calcium reduces the relative risk of pre-eclampsia by 51%, regardless of whether it is taken at a dose above or below 1000 mg daily (113919). Some research suggests that calcium supplementation may have a greater effect in individuals at high risk of pre-eclampsia or with low baseline dietary calcium intake, and when taken at greater than or equal to 20 weeks of gestation (15029,38497,97348,99714,113919). However, another meta-analysis of 30 clinical studies found a similar benefit of calcium in both high- and low-risk individuals (113919). A separate meta-analysis of 6 clinical studies conducted in China evaluated the benefits of calcium carbonate 500-600 mg daily taken in conjunction with aspirin 50-75 mg daily during pregnancy. This combination was associated with an 80% lower relative risk of pre-eclampsia and an 83% lower relative risk of pre-eclampsia with gestational hypertension when compared with routine care (113913). In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a qualified health claim regarding the use of calcium supplements to reduce the risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia. However, due to the limited and conflicting research available at that time, the FDA stated that this outcome was highly unlikely (102366). Since then, large, high-quality clinical research has supported this finding. In fact, in 2016 the World Health Organization (WHO) released a recommendation to prescribe oral calcium 1.5-2 grams daily during pregnancies at high risk of pre-eclampsia if dietary calcium intakes are low (97347).
Pregnancy-induced hypertension. Oral calcium may reduce the risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension. Details: A meta-analysis of 17 clinical studies shows that calcium supplementation during pregnancy may reduce the relative risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension by 30% when compared with control (113909). A separate meta-analysis of 6 clinical studies conducted in China, which evaluated the benefits of calcium carbonate 500-600 mg daily taken in conjunction with aspirin 50-75 mg daily during pregnancy, shows that this combination reduces the relative risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension by 85% when compared with routine care (113913).
Rickets. Oral calcium seems to reverse rickets caused by very low calcium intakes. Details: Rickets is commonly caused be vitamin D deficiency; however, very low calcium intake can also lead to rickets. Calcium supplementation can reverse rickets caused by calcium deficiency (94819). A small clinical study in children with nutritional rickets shows that taking calcium 500-2000 mg daily for 24 weeks improves radiographically measured rickets caused by calcium deficiency. Rickets seems to improve more rapidly with calcium 1000 mg compared to calcium 500 mg. However, increasing the calcium dose to 2000 mg daily is not more beneficial than calcium 1000 mg daily (98904).
Tooth retention. Oral calcium with vitamin D seems to help with tooth retention in the elderly population. Details: A clinical trial in the elderly population shows that taking calcium citrate malate 500 mg daily along with vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) 700 IU daily orally for 3 years reduces the risk of tooth loss by about 52% when compared with placebo (8816).

POSSIBLY INEFFECTIVE

Breast cancer. Oral calcium, via supplementation or as part of the diet, does not seem to be beneficial for breast cancer prevention. Details: Although some studies disagree (15631,39041,95811,107237,113917), most population research suggests that increased calcium intake is not associated with overall breast cancer risk (15631,16715,98895,107236,107237,113917). However, one meta-analysis of observational studies shows that although higher total calcium intake is not associated with breast cancer risk, higher dietary calcium intake, specifically, may be associated with a slightly reduced risk (113917). Also, some analyses suggest that calcium intake may be associated with the risk for certain breast cancer sub-types. Some subgroup analyses suggest that calcium intake may reduce the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal, but not pre-menopausal, adults (15631,107237) and that dietary calcium intake may reduce estrogen receptor(ER)-negative breast cancer, but not ER-positive breast cancer (107236). However, most research has not evaluated the effects of calcium supplementation or intake on breast cancer subtypes. The best evidence to date, from a large scale clinical trial (Women's Health Initiative), shows that taking vitamin D (cholecalciferol) 400 IU daily plus calcium 1000 mg daily for 7 years after menopause does not reduce the risk of developing invasive breast cancer at the end of the study and 5 years after the end of the intervention (16715,98895).
Fractures. Although oral calcium prevents fractures in osteoporosis, most evidence shows that calcium does NOT prevent factures in people who do not have osteoporosis. See Osteoporosis discussion for more information on the use of calcium for this purpose. Details: Robust meta-analyses of mostly large, high-quality clinical studies show that calcium supplementation 500-1600 mg daily for 0.5-7 years with or without vitamin D does not reduce total fractures, hip fractures, vertebral fractures, or non-vertebral fractures in older adults without osteoporosis (95822,112486). A large-scale study in postmenopausal females aged 50-79 years who were enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) suggests that calcium 1000 mg plus vitamin D 400 IU daily for 7 years only modestly improves bone mineral density (BMD) and does not significantly reduce fracture risk. This lack of effect may have been due to low adherence to the treatment regimen. In those who were 80% adherent, the combination of calcium plus vitamin D reduced the risk of hip fracture by about 29% (14282). Also, some clinical research shows that taking calcium carbonate 1000 mg and vitamin D 400 IU for 5 years does not attenuate loss of height after menopause when compared with placebo (95810). Additional meta-analyses of clinical and observational evidence suggest that calcium supplementation is not associated with a reduced risk of vertebral or nonvertebral fractures, such as hip fractures (38589,38888,98895). Some other research has suggested that calcium in combination with vitamin D reduces fracture risk in older patients without osteoporosis (980,1836,8818,12930,12933,12952,38849,102145,107235); however, this research is confounded by a number of variables, including the presence of hormonal therapy and differing levels of fracture risk at baseline (1836,8818,95822). Conflicting findings on this topic might also be due to genetic differences in patient populations. A population analysis of the WHI study found that, in older females with the lowest genetic susceptibility to low BMD, taking calcium with vitamin D is associated with a reduction in fracture risk. However, in females with a higher genetic susceptibility to low BMD, there is no association between supplementation and fracture risk. This might be because individuals with a lower susceptibility to low BMD are also more responsive to calcium and vitamin D supplementation (97357). As of April 2018, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether supplementing with vitamin D >400 IU daily along with calcium >1000 mg daily is safe and effective for preventing fractures in community dwelling adults without vitamin D deficiency, osteoporosis, or a history of fracture. USPSTF recommends against supplementing with calcium 1000 mg daily or less along with vitamin D 400 IU daily or less for preventing primary fractures in community-dwelling postmenopausal females (95695).
Obesity. Oral calcium does not seem to improve weight loss in adults or children with overweight or obesity. Details: Observational research has found that adults and children with low calcium intake are more likely to gain weight, have a higher body mass index (BMI), and be overweight or obese when compared to people with high calcium intake (12124,12125,12126,12127,14265). Additional observational research has found that increasing calcium intake is associated with weight loss in females; the results in males have been conflicting (12127,15602,15603). Despite these findings from observational research and a few small clinical studies (12128,15397,14438,98905,113918), most clinical research has found that increased calcium intake does not increase weight loss (12052,13138,15396,15399,38985,39004,97356). A meta-analysis of 20 clinical studies shows that daily dietary and supplemental calcium intake that meets the dietary reference intake (DRI) of 1000 mg or more daily does not increase weight loss in overweight individuals or patients with obesity when compared with intake below the DRI (95813). An older meta-analysis of 13 clinical trials also shows that increased dietary and supplemental calcium intake does not increase weight loss (15605).
Overall mortality. Oral calcium does not seem to reduce overall mortality. Details: While some population research has found that calcium taken in combination with vitamin D in older females is associated with a lower risk of death (97353), most evidence shows that calcium, with or without vitamin D, has no effect on all-cause mortality (93533,97308,113584).

INEFFECTIVE

Cardiovascular disease (CVD). Oral calcium does not reduce the risk of developing CVD and may actually increase risk in some patients. Details: Clinical research shows that calcium does not decrease CVD risk. Several separate meta-analyses of clinical and population research involving over 50,000 patients show that taking calcium 600-1200 mg daily for up to 7 years does not reduce the risk of CVD-related outcomes, including stroke and myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, or overall mortality (39018,91350,92994,93533,97308,98902,107231,107233). No association was found between total dietary or supplemental calcium intake with or without vitamin D and the risk of CVD or mortality (91350,93533,97308). In fact, some population and clinical research has found that when calcium is used alone or with vitamin D, there is an INCREASED risk of CVD and coronary heart disease (38077,107233). However, other clinical research disagrees (93533). One meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials shows that taking calcium for 2-7 years increases the risk of CVD and coronary heart disease by 1.1-1.2 times when compared with control. However, the majority of the included research evaluated postmenopausal females and it is unclear if this finding is applicable to other populations (107233).
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Intravenous calcium does not prevent nerve pain in patients given oxaliplatin. Oral calcium has not been evaluated for this purpose. Details: While pooled analyses of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials suggest that calcium and magnesium infusion decreases the incidence of oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity, a meta-analysis of only randomized controlled trials shows that the infusion has no effect in preventing neurotoxicity (90028,90029,90031). Additionally, clinical trials show that administering calcium gluconate 1 gram with magnesium sulfate 1 gram intravenously immediately before, or before and after, the administration of a single oxaliplatin cycle (90005), or over the entire 6-cycle course of oxaliplatin, does not improve symptoms of neurotoxicity when compared with placebo (96474).
Myocardial infarction (MI). Oral calcium does not prevent MI. When taken in the absence of vitamin D, oral calcium may increase the risk of MI. Details: Population research has found that increased dietary intake of calcium is associated with a decreased risk of MI (91350). However, a 2010 meta-analysis of clinical research shows that taking calcium at a dose of at least 500 mg daily is associated with an approximate 30% INCREASE in the risk of MI in patients over the age of 40. According to this analysis, one additional case of MI will occur for every 69 patients that take calcium for 5 years (17482). A more recent meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials shows that taking calcium for 2-7 years increases the risk of MI by 1.2 times when compared with control. However, the majority of the included research studied postmenopausal females and it is unclear if this finding is applicable to other populations (107233) In contrast, other meta-analyses of clinical research have shown that taking calcium for up to 7 years is NOT associated with an increased risk of MI, including a meta-analysis that only included postmenopausal females (93533,107231). Reasons for these discrepancies are not entirely clear. It may relate to whether calcium is taken as monotherapy or in combination with vitamin D. When taken with vitamin D, which is commonly recommended, calcium supplementation does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of MI in postmenopausal females (93533). Also, the association between calcium supplementation and MI risk may be influenced by the amount of calcium consumed as part of the diet. Supplementation with calcium may be associated with an increased risk of MI in people with dietary calcium intake above 805 mg daily, but not in those with dietary calcium intake below 805 mg daily (17482)

INSUFFICIENT RELIABLE EVIDENCE to RATE

Alcohol use disorder. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for alcohol use disorder. Details: Preliminary clinical research shows that taking calcium carbonate 800 mg and vitamin D 200 IU orally daily for 14 days modestly reduces alcohol craving scores and withdrawal scores when compared with placebo in adults with alcohol dependence that are undergoing withdrawal. Taking calcium carbonate did not reduce the need for diazepam; however, the study may have been inadequately powered to detect a difference between groups (107234).
Atherosclerosis. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for atherosclerosis. Details: A population study has found that taking calcium 1.2 grams daily for 3 years has no effect on carotid intima thickness or carotid atherosclerosis incidence. A total calcium intake (dietary and supplemental) of at least 1794 mg daily in older females may be associated with a decreased risk of carotid atherosclerosis when compared with a total calcium intake below 1010 mg daily (97351).
Autism spectrum disorder. It is unclear if oral calcium during pregnancy is beneficial for reducing the odds of autism spectrum disorder in the offspring. Details: A small observational study found that calcium supplementation during pregnancy is associated with a 52% reduced odds of an autism spectrum disorder in the offspring (98900).
Brain tumor. It is unclear if dietary calcium intake is associated with risk of brain tumor. Details: A meta-analysis of 4 case-control studies has found that higher dietary calcium intake is associated with a lower odds of brain tumor when compared with lower dietary intake (113922). The validity of this finding is limited by the exploratory nature of the included studies, which analyzed all dietary ingredients for any potential associations.
Cancer. Oral calcium alone does not seem to prevent cancer. It is unclear if oral calcium with vitamin D is beneficial for preventing cancer. Details: Taking calcium alone does not seem to significantly reduce the risk of cancer (12118,15629). The role of calcium in cancer prevention when taken along with vitamin D is controversial, as conflicting results exist. One clinical trial shows that healthy postmenopausal females who take supplemental calcium 1400-1500 mg daily plus vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) 1100 IU daily have a 60% lower relative risk for developing cancer of any type. Approximately 25 postmenopausal females would need to take this combination for 4 years to prevent one occurrence of cancer (15629). However, a more recent clinical study shows that healthy postmenopausal females who take supplemental calcium 1500 mg daily plus vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) 2000 IU daily do not have a reduced risk of cancer at 4 years (93943). Reasons for the disparate results are not entirely clear. The discrepancies do not appear to be related to baseline vitamin D levels or different study populations. It is possible that, given the 10-year time lapse between the two publications, the discrepancies result from differences in cancer detection capability. Also, since cancer risk was a secondary outcome measure in the earlier study and a primary outcome measure in the more recent study, it is possible that the discrepancies result from differences in statistical methodologies. The effect of vitamin D and calcium on cancer risk in males and younger patients is not known. There is also interest in using calcium for reducing the risk of hematological malignancies. An analysis of the Women's Health Initiative study shows that taking calcium 1000 mg daily in combination with vitamin D3 400 IU for up to 10 years is associated with a 20% reduction in the risk of hematologic malignancies when compared with placebo. However, no effect on hematologic malignancy related mortality was seen (97354).
Depression. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for depression prevention. Details: Population research has found no association between a higher dietary intake of calcium and the risk of depression when compared with a lower dietary intake of calcium (96480).
Diabetes. It is unclear if dietary calcium intake is associated with type 2 diabetes risk. Details: Some population research has found that a higher intake of calcium from the diet or supplements, alone or in combination with vitamin D, is associated with a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes when compared with lower calcium intake (14265,16713,96473,113929). One meta-analysis of cohort and cross-sectional studies found that the highest level of dietary calcium intake is associated with an 18% relative reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes when compared with the lowest level of intake. A dose-response analysis suggests that each 300, 600, and 1000 mg per day increase in dietary calcium intake is associated with a 7%, 14%, and 23% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, respectively (113929). However, population research is often limited by confounding variables. For example, one analysis suggests that any beneficial effect might be influenced by concomitant magnesium intake (96473,113929), while another suggests that any benefit from increased intake may be more pronounced in females, adults aged 50 years or older, and Asian populations (113929). Furthermore, other population research has found that serum calcium levels higher than 9.6 mg/dL are associated with greater risk of developing diabetes in Chinese adults with osteoporosis (95815).
Dyslipidemia. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for dyslipidemia. Details: One clinical study in adults with mild to moderate hypercholesterolemia shows that adding calcium carbonate 400 mg three times daily to a low-fat diet (American Heart Association Step 1) for 6 weeks reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels by 4% and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels by 4% when compared with the low-fat diet and placebo (2557). In contrast, a clinical study in females with dyslipidemia shows that taking calcium 800 mg daily for 2 years INCREASES total cholesterol levels and carotid intima-media thickness in postmenopausal, but not premenopausal, females when compared with placebo (97350). Calcium supplementation has also been evaluated in combination with vitamin D. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials including adults with normolipidemia and dyslipidemia shows that taking calcium 500-2000 mg daily and vitamin D 200-7142 IU daily modestly improves HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels, but not LDL cholesterol levels, when compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses suggest that calcium and vitamin D supplementation is most beneficial in patients with dyslipidemia at baseline (107227). The relationship between dietary calcium intake and serum lipid levels has also been evaluated in observational research. A meta-analysis of 7-11 observational studies found that dietary calcium intake is not associated with total cholesterol levels, although small differences in individual lipid parameters were identified. Additionally, a meta-analysis of 4-9 observational studies suggests that calcium intake is not associated with the risk of developing hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, or low HDL. A subgroup analysis found that higher calcium intake may be associated with lower triglyceride levels in Asian populations (113927). Overall, these findings are limited by significant heterogeneity and the cross-sectional nature of the included studies.
Dysmenorrhea. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for reducing pain associated with dysmenorrhea. Details: Clinical research shows that taking calcium carbonate 1000 mg with vitamin D 5000 IU daily for three menstrual cycles does not reduce pain when compared with placebo in patients with primary dysmenorrhea (95821). However, calcium carbonate 1000 mg taken alone seems to reduce pain when compared with placebo.
Endometrial cancer. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for endometrial cancer prevention. Details: A meta-analysis of population research suggests that calcium supplements may reduce the risk of endometrial cancer, but dietary calcium does not seem to have any effect (38893).
Exercise-induced muscle damage. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for reducing exercise-induced muscle damage. Details: A very small clinical study in resistance-trained adults shows that taking calcium carbonate 500 mg 4 times daily for 3 weeks does not attenuate exercise-induced muscle damage from bench presses when compared with placebo (113933). This study may have been inadequately powered to detect a difference between groups.
Fall prevention. It is unclear if oral calcium with vitamin D is beneficial for preventing falls. Details: Research suggests that calcium in combination with vitamin D, but not calcium alone, might prevent falls by decreasing body sway and normalizing systolic blood pressure (6362,11939,39038). Some experts think the combination of calcium and vitamin D may be important (11916). Preliminary clinical research in adults residing in a health care facility shows that taking vitamin D supplements while increasing dietary calcium and protein for 2 years reduces falls by 11% when compared with standard diets. Intervention diets were supplemented with milk, yogurt, and cheese to provide calcium 1142 mg and protein 69 grams daily (107235). There might also be different effects in females compared to males. In one study, females aged 65 years or older who took vitamin D 700 IU plus calcium citrate 500 mg daily over a 3-year period had a 46% lower risk of falling. However, this combination did not decrease falls in males (14291).
Fluorosis. Oral calcium has only been evaluated in combination with other ingredients; its effect when used alone is unclear. Details: Taking calcium orally, in combination with ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and vitamin D, seems to be effective for reducing excessive fluoride levels in children and improving symptoms of fluorosis in children aged 6-12 years (990).
Heart failure. It is unclear if oral calcium in combination with vitamin D is beneficial for preventing heart failure. Details: Based on a secondary analysis of a large-scale clinical trial (Women's Health Initiative), taking calcium 1000 mg with vitamin D 400 IU daily does not reduce the risk of heart failure in the overall population or in individuals at high risk. However, in a subgroup of postmenopausal females without risk factors for heart failure, calcium and vitamin D supplementation might reduce the risk of developing heart failure by about 37% (97307).
Lead toxicity. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for reducing blood levels of lead. Details: Lead is mobilized along with calcium from bone during pregnancy and lactation, resulting in increased serum concentrations of lead. One clinical study suggests that calcium supplementation does not significantly decrease these elevated lead concentrations (1586). However, another clinical study suggests that taking calcium reduces blood lead levels by 11% when compared with placebo, with greatest effects observed in those with high baseline levels of lead (38957).
Lyme disease. Although there is interest in using oral calcium for Lyme disease, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of calcium for this condition.
Metabolic syndrome. It is unclear if oral calcium alone or with vitamin D is beneficial for metabolic syndrome prevention. Details: Population research has found that a higher intake of calcium from diet and supplements alone, or in combination with vitamin D, is associated with a lower risk of developing metabolic syndrome when compared with lower calcium intake (14265,16713).
Nephrotic syndrome. It is unclear if oral calcium with vitamin D is beneficial for preventing nephrotic syndrome. Details: Clinical research shows that taking calcium 500-1000 mg daily for 3 months in combination with vitamin D3 60,000 IU daily or weekly for 4 weeks has no effect on bone mineral density or the risk of relapse in children with steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome (97355).
Nonmelanoma skin cancer. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for preventing keratinocyte carcinomas. Details: In middle aged and older adults recently diagnosed with a colorectal adenoma, clinical research shows that taking calcium 1200 mg daily as calcium carbonate for 3-5 years does not reduce the incidence of keratinocyte cancer when compared with placebo over a median of 8 years. A sub-group analysis shows that taking calcium alone or with vitamin D3 1000 IU daily reduced the risk of invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma by a moderate amount, but had no effect on the risk of basal cell carcinoma (104622).
Oral mucositis. When used in combination with fluoride treatments, a calcium phosphate mouth rinse seems to prevent and reduce mucositis-related pain in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Details: A small clinical study in patients undergoing HSCT shows that using a particular mouth rinse (Caphosol, EUSA Pharma) containing calcium phosphate, in combination with fluoride treatments, reduces days of mucositis, the duration of pain, and the dose and days of morphine used when compared with placebo and fluoride treatment (38611).
Ovarian cancer. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for ovarian cancer prevention. Details: An older meta-analysis of 12 cohort studies found that dietary calcium intake is not associated with a reduced risk of ovarian cancer (38792). However, a more recent pooled analysis of 15 cohort and case-control studies has found that the highest intake of dietary or dairy calcium is associated with a 20% lower risk of ovarian cancer when compared to the lowest intake (97349).
Postpartum depression. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for reducing postpartum depression risk. Details: Preliminary clinical research shows that taking calcium 2 grams daily beginning at 11-21 weeks gestation reduces depression at 12 weeks postpartum when compared with placebo. However, no benefit is seen at 6 weeks postpartum (39447).
Pregnancy-related leg cramps. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for preventing leg cramps during pregnancy. Details: A small clinical study shows that taking calcium 1 gram twice daily (as a mixture of salts) for 2 weeks can reduce pregnancy-related leg cramps during the second half of pregnancy when compared with no treatment (2567).
Prematurity. It is unclear if supplemental calcium is beneficial for the growth and development of preterm infants. Details: A small clinical study in preterm infants consuming human milk shows that supplementation with calcium 45 mg/kg daily and phosphorus 25 mg/kg daily does not affect infant weight, length, head circumference, or risk of osteopenia after 6 weeks when compared with human milk alone (113924). However, the duration and size of this study may have been too limited to detect any difference between groups.
Preterm labor. It is unclear if oral calcium reduces the risk of preterm labor. Details: A meta-analysis of 10 clinical studies shows that taking calcium supplements during pregnancy does not reduce the risk of preterm labor when compared with placebo (113909). A separate meta-analysis of 7 clinical studies conducted in China, which evaluated the benefits of calcium carbonate 500-600 mg daily taken in conjunction with aspirin 50-75 mg daily during pregnancy, shows that this combination reduces the relative risk of preterm labor by 74% when compared with routine care (113913).
Prostate cancer. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for prostate cancer prevention. Details: Some clinical research shows that taking calcium 1200 mg daily might decrease the risk of developing prostate cancer (14133). However, some epidemiological research suggests that consuming very high doses of calcium, over 2000 mg daily, might actually increase the risk of developing prostate cancer (14134). Some epidemiological research also suggests that doses greater than 1500 mg daily increase the risk of poorly differentiated, clinically advanced, and fatal prostate cancer (14132). Consumption of dairy products has also been weakly linked to a modest increase in risk of prostate cancer (98894). However, contradictory research suggests that there is no association between dietary intake of calcium and overall risk of prostate cancer (14131,14132,104630).
Stroke. It is unclear if oral calcium is beneficial for stroke prevention. Details: Some population research has found that increasing dietary calcium intake is associated with a decreased risk of ischemic stroke (4822,38678). However, other population research has found that increasing dietary calcium intake is not associated with a decreased risk of stroke (91350). One meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials shows that taking calcium for 2-7 years does not affect the risk of stroke when compared with control. However, the majority of the included research evaluated postmenopausal females, and it is unclear if this finding is applicable to other populations (107233).
Vertigo. Oral calcium with vitamin D might reduce positional vertigo; the effect of calcium when used alone is unclear. Details: A large clinical study in adults with recurrent benign paroxysmal positional vertigo shows that taking calcium 500 mg and vitamin D 400 IU twice daily for one year reduces annual recurrence of vertigo by 27% when compared with no treatment. The number needed to treat to prevent vertigo was 3.7 (103681). It is unclear if this benefit is due to vitamin D, calcium, or the combination. More evidence is needed to rate calcium for these uses.

(Read more about CALCIUM)

PECTIN (Citrus Pectin)

POSSIBLY EFFECTIVE

Hypercholesterolemia. Most clinical research shows that oral pectin at a dose of 15 grams daily can slightly lower total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Details: While some small studies in patients with or without hypercholesterolemia suggest that pectin 1-12 grams daily for up to 12 weeks does not reduce lipid levels (2215,2217), other research in patients with hypercholesterolemia shows that taking pectin 15 grams daily for 4 weeks consistently reduces total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol by around 7% to 10% when compared with baseline or placebo (2214,2216,92473). Some forms of pectin might lower cholesterol levels better than others. Pectin with a higher molecular weight and higher degree of esterification appears to be the most effective (92473). A larger clinical study also shows that taking 20 grams of pectin and guar gum, along with small amounts of insoluble fiber, reduces total cholesterol by nearly 8% and LDL cholesterol by nearly 11%, but does not improve high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol or triglycerides, when compared with placebo (12547).

INSUFFICIENT RELIABLE EVIDENCE to RATE

Colorectal cancer. Although there has been interest in using oral pectin for the prevention of colorectal cancer, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of pectin for this purpose.
Diarrhea. It is unclear if oral pectin is beneficial in children with persistent diarrhea. Details: A small clinical study in children aged 5-12 months in developing nations with persistent diarrhea shows that taking pectin 4 grams/kg reduces the duration of diarrhea and vomiting, and reduces the need for oral rehydration solution and intravenous fluid, when compared with a rice-diet control (12575). Pectin has also been evaluated in combination with other ingredients. One clinical study in children aged 6 months to 6 years with acute diarrhea shows that taking a combination of apple pectin and chamomile (Diarrhoesan, Dr. Loges + Co. GmbH) for up to 5 days reduces the frequency of stools by day 3 by about 1.36-fold when compared with placebo, with improvements maintained through day 5. This combination product was given hourly up to a maximum dose of 50 mL in children 6-12 months of age, 60 mL in children 1-3 years of age, and 80 mL in children 4-6 years of age (19705). It is unclear if these findings are due to pectin, chamomile, or the combination.
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). It is unclear if oral pectin is beneficial in children with GERD. Details: A small clinical study in children with GERD and cerebral palsy shows that adding pectin to enteral nutrition in a 1:2 ratio for 4 weeks might reduce some symptoms of GERD. The number of vomiting episodes per week was reduced by 60% and the frequency of coughing/wheezing was reduced by 76% for children given the pectin diet when compared with those given a non-pectin diet (92476).
Impaired glucose tolerance (Prediabetes). It is unclear if oral pectin is beneficial in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. Details: A small clinical study in middle-aged patients with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose shows that drinking 400 mL of a beverage containing 40 grams/L of sugar beet pectin in two divided doses daily for 12 weeks does not improve fasting or postprandial plasma glucose concentrations or serum lipid levels when compared to baseline (34118).
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Although there has been interest in using oral pectin for IBS, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of pectin for this purpose.
Mercury toxicity. It is unclear if oral pectin is beneficial in patients with mercury toxicity. Details: A small clinical study in children with mercury poisoning shows that taking pectin 2.5 grams daily for 21 days and then 5 grams daily for 39 days increases mercury excretion in the urine, decreases the duration of mercury toxicity, and improves psychological symptoms when compared to baseline (31657). The validity of these findings is limited by the lack of a comparator group.
Niacin-induced flushing. It is unclear if oral pectin is beneficial for the prevention or management of niacin-induced flushing. Details: A small clinical study shows that taking apple pectin 2 grams 30 minutes prior to taking niacin extended-release 1000 mg reduces the duration of flushing by about 35 minutes when compared with placebo. However, apple pectin does not reduce the incidence of flushing, the time to flush, or the maximum severity of flushing (92477).
Peptic ulcers. It is unclear if oral pectin is beneficial for the prevention of peptic ulcers. Details: A small clinical study in patients with recently healed duodenal ulcers shows that taking apple pectin 10 grams twice daily for 6 months does not reduce the recurrence of duodenal ulcers when compared with placebo (31697).
Prostate cancer. It is unclear if oral pectin is beneficial in patients with prostate cancer. Details: Two small clinical studies in patients with prostate cancer show that taking a specific modified citrus pectin product (Pectasol, Econugenics) 4.8 grams three times daily following prostatectomy, radiation, or cryosurgery for up to one year slows disease progression and increases the time to prostate specific antigen (PSA) doubling when compared to baseline (15020,108525). The validity of these findings is limited by the lack of a comparator group.
Radiation exposure. Although there has been interest in using oral pectin to minimize exposure to environmental radiation, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of pectin for this purpose. More evidence is needed to rate pectin for these uses.

(Read more about PECTIN)

PLANT STEROLS (Campesterol, Stigmasterol)

LIKELY EFFECTIVE

Familial hypercholesterolemia. Oral plant sterols are beneficial for reducing levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol when used in combination with a cholesterol-lowering diet in children and adults with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Details: A meta-analysis of results from clinical research in children and adults with FH shows that taking plant sterols while following a cholesterol-lowering diet reduces total cholesterol by an additional 12 mg/dL and LDL cholesterol by an additional 23 mg/dL when compared with following a cholesterol-lowering diet alone (90743). Individual clinical trials in adults and children 5 years and up show that consuming margarine spreads or yogurt enriched with plant sterol 1.6-2.3 grams daily for 4-26 weeks, sometimes in combination with statin therapy, reduces total cholesterol by up to 11% and LDL cholesterol by up to 14% in patients with FH (90726,90731,35037,35106). However, most clinical research shows that plant sterols do not reduce triglyceride levels or increase high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels in patients with FH (35037,35106,90743).
Hypercholesterolemia. Oral plant sterols in doses of 2-3 grams daily are beneficial for reducing levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, but not triglycerides, when used in combination with a cholesterol-lowering diet. Details: Clinical research shows that taking plant sterols, alone or in combination with plant stanols, reduces total and LDL cholesterol levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Taking plant sterols daily while following a cholesterol-lowering diet reduces total cholesterol by about 3% to 8% and LDL cholesterol by about 5% to 15% when compared with dieting alone (5336,5437,7105,65749,90686,90720,90722,90723,90724,90734)(90741,90748,90752,106093). Plant sterols seem to have the most significant cholesterol-lowering effect in people who naturally produce a high amount of cholesterol (90742). When taken along with statin therapy, plant sterols can lower total cholesterol by about 12-22 mg/dL and LDL cholesterol by about 11-16 mg/dL when compared with statin therapy alone (90728,96272). Predictive modeling suggests that the cholesterol reduction from plant sterols can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease over time. In English adults with hypercholesterolemia and no cardiovascular disease, replacing regular spreads with plant sterol -enriched spreads over a 20-year period could potentially prevent 69 cardiovascular events per 10,000 males and 40 events per 10,000 females (98449). Plant sterols, usually as esters, with or without plant stanols, 0.2-9 grams daily for up to one year have been used (5336,5437,5814,7105,14298,90686,90720,35034,90722,90723)(90724,90726,90730,90732,90733,90734,90741,90742,90744,90748)(90752,96272). However, the optimal dosage of plant sterols for reducing LDL cholesterol is about 2-3 grams daily taken with meals (5814,90733,90748). At this dosage, plant sterols seem to work as well as plant stanols but less effectively than taking policosanol 5-40 mg daily (14298,90730). When taken as fortified foods, plant sterols appear to be more effective when taken in dairy products than in breads or cereals (35034). No increased benefit is seen at dosages higher than 2-3 grams daily (90744). In post-menopausal females, a meta-analysis of 6 studies shows that plant sterols are most effective for reducing total and LDL cholesterol in patients with obesity, using a daily dose of plant sterols greater than 2 grams, and duration of treatment greater than 8 weeks (112081). Additionally, some clinical research shows that plant sterols might become less effective after about 2-3 months of treatment (90726). Results from most individual clinical studies show that plant sterols do not reduce triglyceride levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia (65749,90720,90732,96272,106093,112081). However, a meta-analysis of results from 12 clinical studies shows that taking plant sterols 0.8-4 grams daily reduces triglyceride levels by 6% in patients with hypercholesterolemia (90732). This suggests that plant sterols might modestly lower triglyceride levels in some patients, but more research in larger patient populations is needed to confirm this finding. There is also some evidence showing that plant sterols prepared as ester derivatives using fish oil rather than sunflower oil, olive oil, or rapeseed oil can moderately lower triglyceride levels when compared with placebo (90739). However, this benefit is likely due to the triglyceride-lowering activity of fish oil rather than plant sterols. Taking plant sterols does not improve levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (65749,90728,90732,96272,112081).

POSSIBLY EFFECTIVE

Coronary heart disease (CHD). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved an authorized health claim for dietary plant sterols, when taken in doses of at least 3.4 grams daily as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, for reducing the risk of CHD. Details: In 2010, the US FDA authorized a health claim stating that consuming at least 3.4 grams of plant sterols daily, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease (102365). This health claim is based on evidence showing that plant sterols can lower cholesterol levels. However, there is currently no evidence directly linking dietary intake of plant sterols with a reduced risk for developing CHD.

INSUFFICIENT RELIABLE EVIDENCE to RATE

Cancer. It is unclear if dietary plant sterols are beneficial for cancer prevention. Details: A meta-analysis of population research has found that the highest intake of plant sterols is associated with a 37% reduced risk of cancer when compared with the lowest intake (106084).
Colorectal cancer. It is unclear if dietary plant sterols are beneficial for colorectal cancer prevention. Details: Population research has found that dietary intake of specific plant sterols, including campesterol, stigmasterol, or beta-sitosterol, is not associated with risk of developing colon cancer. Dietary intake of plant sterols also does not affect the risk of rectal cancer in females; however, in males, higher dietary intake of the plant sterols campesterol or stigmasterol is associated with an INCREASED risk of rectal cancer (34993).
Esophageal cancer. It is unclear if dietary plant sterols influence the outcome of esophageal cancer. Details: In Chinese people with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the mortality rate does not seem to differ between those with the lowest versus the highest intake of dietary plant sterols, measured five years before diagnosis (112082).
Gastric cancer. It is unclear if dietary plant sterols are beneficial for gastric cancer prevention. Details: Population research has found that consuming at least 82.5 mg of plant sterols daily as part of the diet is associated with moderately lower odds of developing gastric cancer when compared to those who consume less than 45.5 mg daily (34984).
Impaired glucose tolerance (prediabetes). Although there is interest in using oral plant sterols for prediabetes, there is insufficient reliable information about the clinical effects of plant sterols for this condition.
Metabolic syndrome. It is unclear if oral plant sterols are beneficial for metabolic syndrome; the available research is conflicting. Details: One clinical study shows that taking yogurt mini-drinks providing plant sterols 2 grams twice daily for 8 weeks reduces total cholesterol by about 16%, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol by about 20%, and triglyceride levels by about 19% when compared with control yogurt drinks without plant sterols (90749). However, results from a much smaller study in patients with metabolic syndrome shows that taking plant sterols 2 grams daily for 8 weeks in breakfast cereal and margarine does not improve plasma lipids or other cardiovascular markers when compared with placebo foods (90745). Reasons for the discrepancy are not clear but might relate to the dose or formulation of plant sterol, or the lipid levels of the patients at baseline.
Myocardial infarction (MI). It is unclear if dietary plant sterols are beneficial for MI prevention. Details: Population research has found that consuming approximately 340 mg of plant sterols daily is associated with a 29% lower risk of first myocardial infarction in males when compared with those who consume about 150 mg daily. However, dietary plant sterol intake is not associated with a reduced risk of first myocardial infarction in females (90740).
Obesity. It is unclear if oral plant sterols are beneficial for obesity. Details: In Chinese adults, higher dietary intakes of beta-sitosterol, stigmasterol, and total plant sterols are inversely related to the risk of being overweight. The risk of central obesity is linked to stigmasterol intake in females, and to beta-sitosterol intake in males (112083). Preliminary clinical research in obese individuals shows that consuming rice bran snack bars fortified with a mixture of plant sterols and stanols 1.8 grams daily for 8 weeks while following a reduced calorie diet does not increase weight loss, reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, or improve blood glucose control when compared to dieting and consuming unfortified rice bran snack bars. However, the plant sterol-enriched rice bran snacks appear to decrease total cholesterol by about 10% more than unfortified rice bran snacks (90738). More evidence is needed to rate plant sterols for these uses.

(Read more about PLANT STEROLS)

view details

Safety view details

Below is general information about the safety of the known ingredients contained in the product Beta Sitosterol. Some ingredients may not be listed. This information does NOT represent a recommendation for or a test of this specific product as a whole.

BETA-SITOSTEROL (Beta Sitosterol)

LIKELY SAFE ...when used orally and appropriately. Beta-sitosterol has been safely used at a dose of 130 mg daily for up to 18 months or a dose of up to 21.1 grams daily for up to 3 months (5327,5328,5329,5330,5331,5332,5333,5334,5336,5337) (7198,10638). There is insufficient reliable information available about the safety of beta-sitosterol when used topically.

CHILDREN: LIKELY SAFE
when used orally and appropriately. Beta-sitosterol has been safely used at a dose of 2-4 grams three times daily for up to 3 months (3889,5331,5332,5333,5334,35067).

PREGNANCY AND LACTATION:
Insufficient reliable information available; avoid using.

(Read more about BETA-SITOSTEROL)

CALCIUM

LIKELY SAFE ...when used orally or intravenously and appropriately. Calcium is safe when used in appropriate doses (7555,12928,12946,95817). However, excessive doses should be avoided. The Institute of Medicine sets the daily tolerable upper intake level (UL) for calcium according to age as follows: Age 0-6 months, 1000 mg; 6-12 months, 1500 mg; 1-8 years, 2500 mg; 9-18 years, 3000 mg; 19-50 years, 2500 mg; 51+ years, 2000 mg (17506). Doses over these levels can increase the risk of side effects such as kidney stone, hypercalciuria, hypercalcemia, and milk-alkali syndrome. There has also been concern that calcium intake may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and coronary heart disease (CHD), including myocardial infarction (MI). Some clinical research suggests that calcium intake, often in amounts over the recommended daily intake level of 1000-1300 mg daily for adults, is associated with an increased risk of CVD, CHD, and MI (16118,17482,91350,107233). However, these studies, particularly meta-analyses, have been criticized for excluding trials in which calcium was administered with vitamin D (94137). Other clinical studies suggest that, when combined with vitamin D supplementation, calcium supplementation is not associated with an increased risk of CVD, CHD, or MI (93533,107231). Other analyses report conflicting results and have not shown that calcium intake affects the risk of CVD, CHD, or MI (92994,93533,97308,107231). Advise patients not to consume more than the recommended daily intake of 1000-1200 mg per day, to consider total calcium intake from both dietary and supplemental sources (17484), and to combine calcium supplementation with vitamin D supplementation (93533).

POSSIBLY UNSAFE ...when used orally in excessive doses. The National Academy of Medicine sets the daily tolerable upper intake level (UL) for calcium according to age as follows: 19-50 years, 2500 mg; 51 years and older, 2000 mg (17506). Doses over these levels can increase the risk of side effects such as kidney stones, hypercalciuria, hypercalcemia, and milk-alkali syndrome. There has also been concern that calcium intake may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and coronary heart disease (CHD), including myocardial infarction (MI). Some clinical research suggests that calcium intake, often in amounts over the recommended daily intake level of 1000-1300 mg daily for adults, is associated with an increased risk of CVD, CHD, and MI (16118,17482,91350,107233). However, these studies, particularly meta-analyses, have been criticized for excluding trials in which calcium was administered with vitamin D (94137). Other clinical studies suggest that, when combined with vitamin D supplementation, calcium supplementation is not associated with an increased risk of CVD, CHD, or MI (93533,107231). Other analyses report conflicting results and have not shown that calcium intake affects the risk of CVD, CHD, or MI (92994,93533,97308,107231). Advise patients to not consume more than the recommended daily intake of 1000-1200 mg per day, to consider total calcium intake from both dietary and supplemental sources (17484), and to combine calcium supplementation with vitamin D supplementation (93533).

CHILDREN: LIKELY SAFE
when used orally and appropriately. Calcium is safe when used in appropriate doses (17506).

CHILDREN: POSSIBLY UNSAFE
when used orally in excessive doses. The Institute of Medicine sets the daily tolerable upper intake level (UL) for calcium according to age as follows: 0-6 months, 1000 mg; 6-12 months, 1500 mg; 1-8 years, 2500 mg; 9-18 years, 3000 mg (17506). Doses over these levels can increase the risk of side effects such as kidney stones, hypercalciuria, hypercalcemia, and milk-alkali syndrome.

PREGNANCY AND LACTATION: LIKELY SAFE
when used orally and appropriately (945,1586,3263,3264,17506). The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends prescribing oral calcium supplementation 1.5-2 grams daily during pregnancy to those with low dietary calcium intake to prevent pre-eclampsia (97347).

PREGNANCY AND LACTATION: POSSIBLY UNSAFE
when used orally in excessive doses. The Institute of Medicine sets the same daily tolerable upper intake level (UL) for calcium according to age independent of pregnancy status: 9-18 years, 3000 mg; 19-50 years, 2500 mg (17506). Doses over these amounts might increase the risk of neonatal hypocalcemia-induced seizures possibly caused by transient neonatal hypoparathyroidism in the setting of excessive calcium supplementation during pregnancy, especially during the third trimester. Neonatal hypocalcemia is a risk factor for neonatal seizures (97345).

(Read more about CALCIUM)

PECTIN (Citrus Pectin)

LIKELY SAFE ...when used in amounts commonly found in foods. Pectin has Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) status in the US (4912).

POSSIBLY SAFE ...when used orally in amounts greater than those typically found in food. Pectin 4.8 grams three times daily has been used for up to one year without serious adverse effects (12547,15019,15020,92481,108525).

CHILDREN: POSSIBLY SAFE
when used orally in amounts greater than those found in food, short-term. Pectin 4 grams/kg has been used daily for up to 7 days without reports of serious adverse effects (12575,19705).

PREGNANCY AND LACTATION: LIKELY SAFE
when used in amounts commonly found in foods. Pectin has Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) status in the US (4912).

PREGNANCY AND LACTATION: POSSIBLY SAFE
when used orally in medicinal amounts (12577).

(Read more about PECTIN)

PLANT STEROLS (Campesterol, Stigmasterol)

LIKELY SAFE ...when used orally and appropriately. Plant sterols have been safely used in studies lasting up to one year (35022,35037,90724,90726,90730,90732,90733,90734,90739,90742). Due to the unknown safety of plant sterol oxidation products, and the known production of these oxidation products during the heating of foods (106092), there is insufficient reliable information available about the safety of heat-treated foods containing added plant sterols.

CHILDREN: LIKELY SAFE
when used orally and appropriately. Plant sterols have been safely used in children in studies lasting for up to 6 months (35037,90722,90723,90726,90731,35106). PREGNANCY AND LACTATION: Insufficient reliable information available; avoid using.

(Read more about PLANT STEROLS)

view details

Interactions with Drugs view details

Below is general information about the interactions of the known ingredients contained in the product Beta Sitosterol. Some ingredients may not be listed. This information does NOT represent a recommendation for or a test of this specific product as a whole.

BETA-SITOSTEROL (Beta Sitosterol)

None known.

(Read more about BETA-SITOSTEROL)

CALCIUM

ALUMINUM

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Possible • Level of Evidence = B

Calcium citrate might increase aluminum absorption and toxicity. Other types of calcium do not increase aluminum absorption.

Details

Calcium citrate can increase the absorption of aluminum when taken with aluminum hydroxide. The increase in aluminum levels may become toxic, particularly in individuals with kidney disease (21631). However, the effect of calcium citrate on aluminum absorption is due to the citrate anion rather than calcium cation. Calcium acetate does not appear to increase aluminum absorption (93006).

BISPHOSPHONATES

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Probable • Level of Evidence = C

Calcium reduces the absorption of bisphosphonates.

Details

Advise patients to take bisphosphonates at least 30 minutes before calcium, but preferably at a different time of day. Calcium supplements decrease absorption of bisphosphonates (12937).

CALCIPOTRIENE (Dovonex)

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Possible • Level of Evidence = B

Taking calcipotriene with calcium might increase the risk for hypercalcemia.

Details

Calcipotriene is a vitamin D analog used topically for psoriasis. It can be absorbed in sufficient amounts to cause systemic effects, including hypercalcemia (12938). Theoretically, combining calcipotriene with calcium supplements might increase the risk of hypercalcemia.

CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKERS

Interaction Rating = Minor Be watchful with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Unlikely • Level of Evidence = D

Intravenous calcium may decrease the effects of calcium channel blockers; oral calcium is unlikely to have this effect.

Details

Intravenous calcium is used to decrease the effects of calcium channel blockers in the management of overdose. Intravenous calcium gluconate has been used before intravenous verapamil (Isoptin) to prevent or reduce the hypotensive effects without affecting the antiarrhythmic effects (6124). But there is no evidence that dietary or supplemental calcium when taken orally interacts with calcium channel blockers (12939,12947).

CEFTRIAXONE (Rocephin)

Interaction Rating = Major Do not take this combination.

Severity = High • Occurrence = Probable • Level of Evidence = D

Co-administration of intravenous calcium and ceftriaxone can result in precipitation of a ceftriaxone-calcium salt in the lungs and kidneys.

Details

Avoid administering intravenous calcium in any form, such as parenteral nutrition or Lactated Ringers, within 48 hours of intravenous ceftriaxone. Case reports in neonates show that administering intravenous ceftriaxone and calcium can result in precipitation of a ceftriaxone-calcium salt in the lungs and kidneys. In several cases, neonates have died as a result of this interaction (15794,21632). So far there are no reports in adults; however, there is still concern that this interaction might occur in adults.

DIGOXIN (Lanoxin)

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = High • Occurrence = Possible • Level of Evidence = B

Using intravenous calcium with digoxin might increase the risk of fatal cardiac arrhythmias.

Details

Hypercalcemia increases the risk of fatal cardiac arrhythmias with digoxin (12940). However, one retrospective analysis of clinical data suggests that intravenous calcium does not increase the risk of dysrhythmias or mortality in patients receiving digoxin (38960).

DILTIAZEM (Cardizem, others)

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Probable • Level of Evidence = D

Theoretically, calcium may reduce the therapeutic effects of diltiazem.

Details

Hypercalcemia can reduce the effectiveness of verapamil in atrial fibrillation (10574). Theoretically, calcium might increase this risk of hypercalcemia and reduce the effectiveness of diltiazem.

DOLUTEGRAVIR (Tivicay)

Interaction Rating = Major Do not take this combination.

Severity = High • Occurrence = Probable • Level of Evidence = B

Calcium seems to reduce levels of dolutegravir.

Details

Advise patients to take dolutegravir either 2 hours before or 6 hours after taking calcium supplements. Pharmacokinetic research suggests that taking calcium carbonate 1200 mg concomitantly with dolutegravir 50 mg reduces plasma levels of dolutegravir by almost 40%. Calcium appears to decrease levels of dolutegravir through chelation (93578).

ELVITEGRAVIR (Vitekta)

Interaction Rating = Major Do not take this combination.

Severity = High • Occurrence = Probable • Level of Evidence = B

Calcium seems to reduce levels of elvitegravir.

Details

Advise patients to take elvitegravir either 2 hours before or 2 hours after taking calcium supplements. Pharmacokinetic research suggests that taking calcium along with elvitegravir can reduce blood levels of elvitegravir through chelation (94166).

LEVOTHYROXINE (Synthroid, others)

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Probable • Level of Evidence = B

Calcium seems to reduce the absorption and effectiveness of levothyroxine.

Details

Advise patients to take levothyroxine and calcium supplements at least 4 hours apart. Calcium reduces levothyroxine absorption, probably by forming insoluble complexes (5082). Calcium carbonate supplements reduce effectiveness of levothyroxine in patients with hypothyroidism (5081,5082,6137).

LITHIUM

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Possible • Level of Evidence = B

Theoretically, concomitant use of calcium and lithium may increase this risk of hypercalcemia.

Details

Clinical research suggests that long-term use of lithium may cause hypercalcemia in 10% to 60% of patients (38953). Theoretically, concomitant use of lithium and calcium supplements may further increase this risk.

QUINOLONE ANTIBIOTICS

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Probable • Level of Evidence = B

Calcium seems to reduce the absorption of quinolone antibiotics.

Details

Advise patients to take oral quinolones at least 2 hours before or 4-6 hours after calcium supplements or calcium-fortified foods. Taking calcium at the same time as oral quinolones can reduce quinolone absorption. Calcium binds to quinolones in the gut (4412,10339,21638,38570).

RALTEGRAVIR (Isentress)

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = High • Occurrence = Possible • Level of Evidence = B

Calcium may reduce levels of raltegravir.

Details

Pharmacokinetic research shows that taking a single dose of calcium carbonate 3000 mg along with raltegravir 400 mg twice daily modestly decreases the mean area under the curve of raltegravir, but the decrease does not necessitate a dose adjustment of raltegravir (94164). However, a case of elevated HIV-1 RNA levels and documented resistance to raltegravir has been reported for a patient taking calcium carbonate 1 gram three times daily plus vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) 400 IU three times daily in combination with raltegravir 400 mg twice daily for 11 months. It is thought that calcium reduced raltegravir levels by chelation, leading to treatment failure (94165).

SOTALOL (Betapace)

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Possible • Level of Evidence = B

Calcium seems to reduce the absorption of sotalol.

Details

Advise patients to separate doses by at least 2 hours before or 4-6 hours after calcium. Calcium appears to reduce the absorption of sotalol, probably by forming insoluble complexes (10018).

TETRACYCLINE ANTIBIOTICS

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Probable • Level of Evidence = C

Calcium seems to reduce the absorption of tetracycline antibiotics.

Details

Advise patients to take oral tetracyclines at least 2 hours before, or 4-6 hours after calcium supplements. Taking calcium at the same time as oral tetracyclines can reduce tetracycline absorption. Calcium binds to tetracyclines in the gut (1843).

THIAZIDE DIURETICS

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Probable • Level of Evidence = C

Taking calcium along with thiazides might increase the risk of hypercalcemia and renal failure.

Details

Thiazides reduce calcium excretion by the kidneys (1902). Using thiazides along with moderately large amounts of calcium carbonate increases the risk of milk-alkali syndrome (hypercalcemia, metabolic alkalosis, renal failure). Patients may need to have their serum calcium levels and/or parathyroid function monitored regularly.

VERAPAMIL (Calan, others)

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Probable • Level of Evidence = D

Theoretically, calcium may reduce the therapeutic effects of verapamil.

Details

Hypercalcemia can reduce the effectiveness of verapamil in atrial fibrillation (10574). Theoretically, use of calcium supplements may increase this risk of hypercalcemia and reduce the effectiveness of verapamil.

(Read more about CALCIUM)

PECTIN (Citrus Pectin)

DIGOXIN (Lanoxin)

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Possible • Level of Evidence = B

Theoretically, pectin might reduce the absorption of digoxin, potentially decreasing its effectiveness.

Details

A small clinical study shows that taking digoxin with a kaolin-pectin suspension reduces the absorption of digoxin by about 62% (2212). It is unclear if these effects are due to pectin, kaolin, or the combination.

LOVASTATIN (Mevacor)

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Possible • Level of Evidence = D

Theoretically, pectin might reduce the absorption of lovastatin, potentially decreasing its effectiveness.

Details

Case reports suggest that concomitant use of pectin and lovastatin might reduce the cholesterol-lowering effect of lovastatin, possibly due to reduced intestinal absorption of lovastatin (615).

TETRACYCLINE ANTIBIOTICS

Interaction Rating = Moderate Be cautious with this combination.

Severity = Moderate • Occurrence = Possible • Level of Evidence = B

Theoretically, pectin might reduce the absorption of tetracycline antibiotics, potentially decreasing their effectiveness.

Details

A small clinical study shows that taking tetracycline with bismuth subsalicylate in a kaolin-pectin suspension reduces the absorption of tetracycline by about 34% (2213). It is unclear if these effects are due to pectin, kaolin, bismuth subsalicylate, or the combination.

(Read more about PECTIN)

PLANT STEROLS (Campesterol, Stigmasterol)

None known.

(Read more about PLANT STEROLS)

view details

Adverse Effects view details

Report an Adverse Reaction to Beta Sitosterol

Below is general information about the adverse effects of the known ingredients contained in the product Beta Sitosterol. Some ingredients may not be listed. This information does NOT represent a recommendation for or a test of this specific product as a whole.

BETA-SITOSTEROL (Beta Sitosterol)

General ...Orally, beta-sitosterol is generally well tolerated. Topically, beta-sitosterol seems to be well tolerated.
Most Common Adverse Effects:
Orally: Constipation, diarrhea, gas, indigestion, and nausea.

Dermatologic ...Orally, beta-sitosterol can worsen acne when taken alone or in combination with saw palmetto (5331,15550).

Gastrointestinal ...Orally, beta-sitosterol can cause nausea, indigestion, gas, diarrhea, or constipation (5327,5328). Beta-sitosterol can also reduce the appetite (5334). There is a case report of acute pancreatitis thought to be associated with taking beta-sitosterol in a 57-year-old male. Symptoms started the first day of use, but did not return when he stopped taking beta-sitosterol (106080).
Single reports of reduced appetite, flatulence, and diarrhea have been reported for patients taking a combination of saw palmetto and beta-sitosterol (15550).

Genitourinary ...Orally, beta-sitosterol can cause erectile dysfunction and loss of libido (5327,5329).

(Read more about BETA-SITOSTEROL)

CALCIUM

General ...Orally and intravenously, calcium is well-tolerated when used appropriately.
Most Common Adverse Effects:
Orally: Belching, constipation, diarrhea, flatulence, and stomach upset.
Serious Adverse Effects (Rare):
Orally: Case reports have raised concerns about calciphylaxis and kidney stones.

Cardiovascular ...There has been concern that calcium intake may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and coronary heart disease (CHD), including myocardial infarction (MI). Some clinical research suggests that calcium intake, often in amounts over the recommended daily intake level of 1000-1300 mg daily for adults, is associated with an increased risk of CVD, CHD, and MI (16118,17482,91350,107233). However, these results, particularly meta-analyses, have been criticized for excluding trials in which calcium was administered with vitamin D (94137). Many of these trials also only included postmenopausal females. Other analyses report conflicting results, and have not shown that calcium intake affects the risk of CVD, CHD, or MI (92994,93533,97308,107231). Reasons for these discrepancies are not entirely clear. It may relate to whether calcium is taken as monotherapy or in combination with vitamin D. When taken with vitamin D, which is commonly recommended, calcium supplementation does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of CVD, CHD, or MI (93533,107231). Also, the association between calcium supplementation and CVD, CHD, or MI risk may be influenced by the amount of calcium consumed as part of the diet. Supplementation with calcium may be associated with an increased risk of MI in people with dietary calcium intake above 805 mg daily, but not in those with dietary calcium intake below 805 mg daily (17482). To minimize the possible risk of CVD, CHD, or MI, advise patients not to consume more than the recommended daily intake of 1000-1200 mg and to consider total calcium intake from both dietary and supplemental sources (17484). While dietary intake of calcium is preferred over supplemental intake, advise patients who require calcium supplements to take calcium along with vitamin D, as this combination does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of MI (93533).
Rarely, calcium intake can increase the risk of calciphylaxis, which usually occurs in patients with kidney failure. Calciphylaxis is the deposition of calcium phosphate in arterioles, which causes skin ulcers and skin necrosis. In a case report, a 64-year-old female with a history of neck fracture, sepsis, and ischemic colitis presented with painful leg ulcers due to calciphylaxis. She discontinued calcium and vitamin D supplementation and was treated with sodium thiosulfate and supportive care (95816).

Gastrointestinal ...Orally, calcium can cause belching, flatulence, nausea, gastrointestinal discomfort, and diarrhea (1824,1843,12950,38803). Although constipation is frequently cited as an adverse effect of calcium, there is no scientific substantiation of this side effect (1824,1843,1844,1845,12950,38978). Calcium carbonate has been reported to cause acid rebound, but this is controversial (12935,12936).

Oncologic ...There is some concern that very high doses of calcium might increase the risk of prostate cancer. Some epidemiological evidence suggests that consuming over 2000 mg/day of dietary calcium might increase the risk for prostate cancer (4825,12949). Additional research suggests that calcium intake over 1500 mg/day might increase the risk of advanced prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality (14132). Consumption of dairy products has also been weakly linked to a small increase in prostate cancer risk (98894). However, contradictory research suggests no association between dietary intake of calcium and overall prostate cancer risk (14131,14132,104630). More evidence is needed to determine the effect of calcium, if any, on prostate cancer risk.

Renal ...Kidney stones have been reported in individuals taking calcium carbonate 1500 mg daily in combination with vitamin D 2000 IU daily for 4 years (93943).

(Read more about CALCIUM)

PECTIN (Citrus Pectin)

General ...Orally, pectin seems to be well tolerated.
Most Common Adverse Effects:
Orally: Diarrhea, gas, loose stools, and mild cramps.
Serious Adverse Effects (Rare):
All routes of administration: Allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, in sensitive individuals.

Gastrointestinal ...Orally, pectin alone or in combination with guar gum and insoluble fiber can cause gastrointestinal adverse effects such as mild cramps, diarrhea, gas, and loose stools (12547,15020,92473).

Immunologic ...Orally and topically, pectin may cause allergic reactions in sensitive individuals. In one case, a 7-year-old boy with a history of oral allergy syndrome after consuming a pectin-containing beverage experienced anaphylaxis after taking a citrus bath containing pectin. Allergy testing confirmed sensitivity to pectin (106928).

Pulmonary/Respiratory ...The occupational inhalation of pectin dust can cause asthma (580,581,582,583,584).

(Read more about PECTIN)

PLANT STEROLS (Campesterol, Stigmasterol)

General ...Orally, plant sterols are generally well tolerated.

Dermatologic ...Acute dermatitis has been reported in a case report of a 51-year-old female who used a pharmacy-brand plant sterol supplement to lower cholesterol levels. The rash was widespread with lesions on the hands and feet and a red and swollen face. The patient was treated orally with prednisolone and topically with emollients for 2 weeks (90737). It is not entirely clear if this adverse effect was due to the plant sterol supplement or another contributing factor.

Endocrine ...Peripheral precocious puberty has been described in a 20-month-old boy who ingested about 15 grams daily of a chicken essence product containing the plant sterol avenasterol, also known as clerosterol or chondrillasterol. Signs and symptoms included elevated estradiol and testosterone levels, acne, hairiness, increased penis size, hoarse voice, and increased growth rate. These effects were reversed when the product was stopped (112084).

Gastrointestinal ...Abdominal discomfort has occurred in one child in a clinical trial of oral plant sterols (35106). Because plant sterols decrease cholesterol absorption in the gut, there is concern that they might produce some gastrointestinal symptoms like diarrhea and excess amounts of fat in the stool (steatorrhea), although these adverse effects have not been reported in clinical research.

(Read more about PLANT STEROLS)

Report an Adverse Reaction to Beta Sitosterol

view details