BACKGROUND: It has been reported that neural tube defects (NTD) can be prevented with periconceptional folic acid supplementation. The effects of different doses, forms and schemes of folate supplementation for the prevention of other birth defects and maternal and infant outcomes are unclear. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to examine whether periconceptional folate supplementation reduces the risk of neural tube and other congenital anomalies (including cleft palate) without causing adverse outcomes in mothers or babies. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane review on this topic. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2015). Additionally, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 August 2015) and contacted relevant organisations to identify ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effect of periconceptional folate supplementation alone, or in combination with other vitamins and minerals, in women independent of age and parity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data from included studies, checked data entry for accuracy and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials involving 7391 women (2033 with a history of a pregnancy affected by a NTD and 5358 with no history of NTDs) were included. Four comparisons were made: 1) supplementation with any folate versus no intervention, placebo or other micronutrients without folate (five trials); 2) supplementation with folic acid alone versus no treatment or placebo (one trial); 3) supplementation with folate plus other micronutrients versus other micronutrients without folate (four trials); and 4) supplementation with folate plus other micronutrients versus the same other micronutrients without folate (two trials). The risk of bias of the trials was variable. Only one trial was considered to be at low risk of bias. The remaining studies lacked clarity regarding the randomisation method or whether the allocation to the intervention was concealed. All the participants were blinded to the intervention, though blinding was unclear for outcome assessors in the five trials.The results of the first comparison involving 6708 births with information on NTDs and other infant outcomes, show a protective effect of daily folic acid supplementation (alone or in combination with other vitamins and minerals) in preventing NTDs compared with no interventions/placebo or vitamins and minerals without folic acid (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.58); five studies; 6708 births; high quality evidence). Only one study assessed the incidence of NTDs and showed no evidence of an effect (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; 4862 births) although no events were found in the group that received folic acid. Folic acid had a significant protective effect for reoccurrence (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.64); four studies; 1846 births). Subgroup analyses suggest that the positive effect of folic acid on NTD incidence and recurrence is not affected by the explored daily folic acid dosage (400 µg (0.4 mg) or higher) or whether folic acid is given alone or with other vitamins and minerals. These results are consistent across all four review comparisons.There is no evidence of any preventive or negative effects on cleft palate (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.05 to 10.89; three studies; 5612 births; low quality evidence), cleft lip ((RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.14 to 4.36; three studies; 5612 births; low quality evidence), congenital cardiovascular defects (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.33; three studies; 5612 births; low quality evidence), miscarriages (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.28; five studies; 7391 pregnancies; moderate quality evidence) or any other birth defects (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.66; three studies; 5612 births; low quality evidence). There were no included trials assessing the effects of this intervention on neonatal death, maternal blood folate or anaemia at term. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Folic acid, alone or in combination with vitamins and minerals, prevents NTDs, but does not have a clear effect on other birth defects. ※ The abstract text as collected and stored via the API by the pipeline. The key summary is written based solely on this text.

A randomised double-blind prevention trial with a factorial design was conducted at 33 centres in seven countries to determine whether supplementation with folic acid (one of the vitamins in the B group) or a mixture of seven other vitamins (A,D,B1,B2,B6,C and nicotinamide) around the time of conception can prevent neural tube defects (anencephaly, spina bifida, encephalocele). A total of 1817 women at high risk of having a pregnancy with a neural tube defect, because of a previous affected pregnancy, were allocated at random to one of four groups--namely, folic acid, other vitamins, both, or neither. 1195 had a completed pregnancy in which the fetus or infant was known to have or not have a neural tube defect; 27 of these had a known neural tube defect, 6 in the folic acid groups and 21 in the two other groups, a 72% protective effect (relative risk 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.12-0.71). The other vitamins showed no significant protective effect (relative risk 0.80, 95% Cl 0.32-1.72). There was no demonstrable harm from the folic acid supplementation, though the ability of the study to detect rare or slight adverse effects was limited. Folic acid supplementation starting before pregnancy can now be firmly recommended for all women who have had an affected pregnancy, and public health measures should be taken to ensure that the diet of all women who may bear children contains an adequate amount of folic acid. ※ The abstract text as collected and stored via the API by the pipeline. The key summary is written based solely on this text.

IMPORTANCE: Uncertainty remains about the efficacy of folic acid therapy for the primary prevention of stroke because of limited and inconsistent data. OBJECTIVE: To test the primary hypothesis that therapy with enalapril and folic acid is more effective in reducing first stroke than enalapril alone among Chinese adults with hypertension. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The China Stroke Primary Prevention Trial, a randomized, double-blind clinical trial conducted from May 19, 2008, to August 24, 2013, in 32 communities in Jiangsu and Anhui provinces in China. A total of 20,702 adults with hypertension without history of stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) participated in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible participants, stratified by MTHFR C677T genotypes (CC, CT, and TT), were randomly assigned to receive double-blind daily treatment with a single-pill combination containing enalapril, 10 mg, and folic acid, 0.8 mg (n = 10,348) or a tablet containing enalapril, 10 mg, alone (n = 10,354). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was first stroke. Secondary outcomes included first ischemic stroke; first hemorrhagic stroke; MI; a composite of cardiovascular events consisting of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke; and all-cause death. RESULTS: During a median treatment duration of 4.5 years, compared with the enalapril alone group, the enalapril-folic acid group had a significant risk reduction in first stroke (2.7% of participants in the enalapril-folic acid group vs 3.4% in the enalapril alone group; hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93), first ischemic stroke (2.2% with enalapril-folic acid vs 2.8% with enalapril alone; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91), and composite cardiovascular events consisting of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke (3.1% with enalapril-folic acid vs 3.9% with enalapril alone; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92). The risks of hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.34), MI (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.60-1.82), and all-cause deaths (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81-1.10) did not differ significantly between the 2 treatment groups. There were no significant differences between the 2 treatment groups in the frequencies of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with hypertension in China without a history of stroke or MI, the combined use of enalapril and folic acid, compared with enalapril alone, significantly reduced the risk of first stroke. These findings are consistent with benefits from folate use among adults with hypertension and low baseline folate levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00794885. ※ The abstract text as collected and stored via the API by the pipeline. The key summary is written based solely on this text.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease, which includes coronary artery disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease, is a leading cause of death worldwide. Homocysteine is an amino acid with biological functions in methionine metabolism. A postulated risk factor for cardiovascular disease is an elevated circulating total homocysteine level. The impact of homocysteine-lowering interventions, given to patients in the form of vitamins B6, B9 or B12 supplements, on cardiovascular events has been investigated. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009, 2013, and 2015. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether homocysteine-lowering interventions, provided to patients with and without pre-existing cardiovascular disease are effective in preventing cardiovascular events, as well as reducing all-cause mortality, and to evaluate their safety. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to 1 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 2017 week 22) and LILACS (1986 to 1 June 2017). We also searched Web of Science (1970 to 1 June 2017). We handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We also contacted researchers in the field. There was no language restriction in the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of homocysteine-lowering interventions for preventing cardiovascular events with a follow-up period of one year or longer. We considered myocardial infarction and stroke as the primary outcomes. We excluded studies in patients with end-stage renal disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. We used a random-effects model. We conducted trial sequential analyses, Bayes factor, and fragility indices where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: In this third update, we identified three new randomised controlled trials, for a total of 15 randomised controlled trials involving 71,422 participants. Nine trials (60%) had low risk of bias, length of follow-up ranged from one to 7.3 years. Compared with placebo, there were no differences in effects of homocysteine-lowering interventions on myocardial infarction (homocysteine-lowering = 7.1% versus placebo = 6.0%; RR 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.10, I2 = 0%, 12 trials; N = 46,699; Bayes factor 1.04, high-quality evidence), death from any cause (homocysteine-lowering = 11.7% versus placebo = 12.3%, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06, I2 = 0%, 11 trials, N = 44,817; Bayes factor = 1.05, high-quality evidence), or serious adverse events (homocysteine-lowering = 8.3% versus comparator = 8.5%, RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14, I2 = 0%, eight trials, N = 35,788; high-quality evidence). Compared with placebo, homocysteine-lowering interventions were associated with reduced stroke outcome (homocysteine-lowering = 4.3% versus comparator = 5.1%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99, I2 = 8%, 10 trials, N = 44,224; high-quality evidence). Compared with low doses, there were uncertain effects of high doses of homocysteine-lowering interventions on stroke (high = 10.8% versus low = 11.2%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22, I2 = 72%, two trials, N = 3929; very low-quality evidence).We found no evidence of publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this third update of the Cochrane review, there were no differences in effects of homocysteine-lowering interventions in the form of supplements of vitamins B6, B9 or B12 given alone or in combination comparing with placebo on myocardial infarction, death from any cause or adverse events. In terms of stroke, this review found a small difference in effect favouring to homocysteine-lowering interventions in the form of supplements of vitamins B6, B9 or B12 given alone or in combination comparing with placebo.There were uncertain effects of enalapril plus folic acid compared with enalapril on stroke; approximately 143 (95% CI 85 to 428) people would need to be treated for 5.4 years to prevent 1 stroke, this evidence emerged from one mega-trial.Trial sequential analyses showed that additional trials are unlikely to increase the certainty about the findings of this issue regarding homocysteine-lowering interventions versus placebo. There is a need for additional trials comparing homocysteine-lowering interventions combined with antihypertensive medication versus antihypertensive medication, and homocysteine-lowering interventions at high doses versus homocysteine-lowering interventions at low doses. Potential trials should be large and co-operative. ※ The abstract text as collected and stored via the API by the pipeline. The key summary is written based solely on this text.

BACKGROUND: Some countries fortify flour with folic acid to prevent neural tube defects but others do not, partly because of concerns about possible cancer risks. We aimed to assess any effects on site-specific cancer rates in the randomised trials of folic acid supplementation, at doses higher than those from fortification. METHODS: In these meta-analyses, we sought all trials completed before 2011 that compared folic acid versus placebo, had scheduled treatment duration at least 1 year, included at least 500 participants, and recorded data on cancer incidence. We obtained individual participant datasets that included 49,621 participants in all 13 such trials (ten trials of folic acid for prevention of cardiovascular disease [n=46,969] and three trials in patients with colorectal adenoma [n=2652]). All these trials were evenly randomised. The main outcome was incident cancer (ignoring non-melanoma skin cancer) during the scheduled treatment period (among participants who were still free of cancer). We compared those allocated folic acid with those allocated placebo, and used log-rank analyses to calculate the cancer incidence rate ratio (RR). FINDINGS: During a weighted average scheduled treatment duration of 5·2 years, allocation to folic acid quadrupled plasma concentrations of folic acid (57·3 nmol/L for the folic acid groups vs 13·5 nmol/L for the placebo groups), but had no significant effect on overall cancer incidence (1904 cancers in the folic acid groups vs 1809 cancers in the placebo groups, RR 1·06, 95% CI 0·99–1·13, p=0·10). There was no trend towards greater effect with longer treatment. There was no significant heterogeneity between the results of the 13 individual trials (p=0·23), or between the two overall results in the cadiovascular prevention trials and the adenoma trials (p=0·13). Moreover, there was no significant effect of folic acid supplementation on the incidence of cancer of the large intestine, prostate, lung, breast, or any other specific site. INTERPRETATION: Folic acid supplementation does not substantially increase or decrease incidence of site-specific cancer during the first 5 years of treatment. Fortification of flour and other cereal products involves doses of folic acid that are, on average, an order of magnitude smaller than the doses used in these trials. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Food Standards Agency. ※ The abstract text as collected and stored via the API by the pipeline. The key summary is written based solely on this text.