CONTEXT: Secondary analyses of 2 randomized controlled trials and supportive epidemiologic and preclinical data indicated the potential of selenium and vitamin E for preventing prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether selenium, vitamin E, or both could prevent prostate cancer and other diseases with little or no toxicity in relatively healthy men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial (Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial [SELECT]) of 35,533 men from 427 participating sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico randomly assigned to 4 groups (selenium, vitamin E, selenium + vitamin E, and placebo) in a double-blind fashion between August 22, 2001, and June 24, 2004. Baseline eligibility included age 50 years or older (African American men) or 55 years or older (all other men), a serum prostate-specific antigen level of 4 ng/mL or less, and a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Oral selenium (200 microg/d from L-selenomethionine) and matched vitamin E placebo, vitamin E (400 IU/d of all rac-alpha-tocopheryl acetate) and matched selenium placebo, selenium + vitamin E, or placebo + placebo for a planned follow-up of minimum of 7 years and a maximum of 12 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prostate cancer and prespecified secondary outcomes, including lung, colorectal, and overall primary cancer. RESULTS: As of October 23, 2008, median overall follow-up was 5.46 years (range, 4.17-7.33 years). Hazard ratios (99% confidence intervals [CIs]) for prostate cancer were 1.13 (99% CI, 0.95-1.35; n = 473) for vitamin E, 1.04 (99% CI, 0.87-1.24; n = 432) for selenium, and 1.05 (99% CI, 0.88-1.25; n = 437) for selenium + vitamin E vs 1.00 (n = 416) for placebo. There were no significant differences (all P>.15) in any other prespecified cancer end points. There were statistically nonsignificant increased risks of prostate cancer in the vitamin E group (P = .06) and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the selenium group (relative risk, 1.07; 99% CI, 0.94-1.22; P = .16) but not in the selenium + vitamin E group. CONCLUSION: Selenium or vitamin E, alone or in combination at the doses and formulations used, did not prevent prostate cancer in this population of relatively healthy men. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00006392. ※ The abstract text as collected and stored via the API by the pipeline. The key summary is written based solely on this text.

CONTEXT: The initial report of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) found no reduction in risk of prostate cancer with either selenium or vitamin E supplements but a statistically nonsignificant increase in prostate cancer risk with vitamin E. Longer follow-up and more prostate cancer events provide further insight into the relationship of vitamin E and prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term effect of vitamin E and selenium on risk of prostate cancer in relatively healthy men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 35,533 men from 427 study sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico were randomized between August 22, 2001, and June 24, 2004. Eligibility criteria included a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 4.0 ng/mL or less, a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer, and age 50 years or older for black men and 55 years or older for all others. The primary analysis included 34,887 men who were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: 8752 to receive selenium; 8737, vitamin E; 8702, both agents, and 8696, placebo. Analysis reflect the final data collected by the study sites on their participants through July 5, 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Oral selenium (200 μg/d from L-selenomethionine) with matched vitamin E placebo, vitamin E (400 IU/d of all rac-α-tocopheryl acetate) with matched selenium placebo, both agents, or both matched placebos for a planned follow-up of a minimum of 7 and maximum of 12 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prostate cancer incidence. RESULTS: This report includes 54,464 additional person-years of follow-up and 521 additional cases of prostate cancer since the primary report. Compared with the placebo (referent group) in which 529 men developed prostate cancer, 620 men in the vitamin E group developed prostate cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 99% CI, 1.004-1.36, P = .008); as did 575 in the selenium group (HR, 1.09; 99% CI, 0.93-1.27; P = .18), and 555 in the selenium plus vitamin E group (HR, 1.05; 99% CI, 0.89-1.22, P = .46). Compared with placebo, the absolute increase in risk of prostate cancer per 1000 person-years was 1.6 for vitamin E, 0.8 for selenium, and 0.4 for the combination. CONCLUSION: Dietary supplementation with vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00006392. ※ The abstract text as collected and stored via the API by the pipeline. The key summary is written based solely on this text.

BACKGROUND: Findings from animal models suggest that selenium supplementation improves glucose metabolism. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of long-term selenium supplementation on the incidence of type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Areas of low selenium consumption of the eastern United States. PATIENTS: 1202 persons seen in dermatology clinics who did not have type 2 diabetes at baseline. INTERVENTION: Oral administration of selenium, 200 microg/d, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Incidence of type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: During an average follow-up of 7.7 years (SD, 2.7), type 2 diabetes developed in 58 selenium recipients and 39 placebo recipients (incidence, 12.6 cases per 1000 person-years vs. 8.4 cases per 1000 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.33]). The lack of benefit of selenium supplementation on the incidence of type 2 diabetes persisted in analyses stratified by age, sex, body mass index, and smoking status. An exposure-response gradient was found across tertiles of baseline plasma selenium level, with a statistically significantly increased risk for type 2 diabetes in the highest tertile of baseline plasma selenium level (hazard ratio, 2.70 [CI, 1.30 to 5.61]). LIMITATIONS: Diabetes was a secondary outcome in the parent trial. Diagnoses of diabetes were self-reported but were validated in most participants. The sample was mostly older and white. CONCLUSIONS: Selenium supplementation does not seem to prevent type 2 diabetes, and it may increase risk for the disease. Click here for related information on selenium. ※ The abstract text as collected and stored via the API by the pipeline. The key summary is written based solely on this text.

BACKGROUND: This review is the third update of the Cochrane review "Selenium for preventing cancer". Selenium is a naturally occurring element with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancer. OBJECTIVES: To gather and present evidence needed to address two research questions:1. What is the aetiological relationship between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans?2. Describe the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans. SEARCH METHODS: We updated electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (Ovid, 2013 to January 2017, week 4), and Embase (2013 to 2017, week 6), as well as searches of clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies that enrolled adult participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed random-effects (RE) meta-analyses when two or more RCTs were available for a specific outcome. We conducted RE meta-analyses when five or more observational studies were available for a specific outcome. We assessed risk of bias in RCTs and in observational studies using Cochrane's risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. We considered in the primary analysis data pooled from RCTs with low risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 83 studies in this updated review: two additional RCTs (10 in total) and a few additional trial reports for previously included studies. RCTs involved 27,232 participants allocated to either selenium supplements or placebo. For analyses of RCTs with low risk of bias, the summary risk ratio (RR) for any cancer incidence was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.10; 3 studies, 19,475 participants; high-certainty evidence). The RR for estimated cancer mortality was 1.02 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.30; 1 study, 17,444 participants). For the most frequently investigated site-specific cancers, investigators provided little evidence of any effect of selenium supplementation. Two RCTs with 19,009 participants indicated that colorectal cancer was unaffected by selenium administration (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.43), as were non-melanoma skin cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.30 to 4.42; 2 studies, 2027 participants), lung cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.50; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), breast cancer (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 9.55; 1 study, 802 participants), bladder cancer (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.52; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), and prostate cancer (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 4 studies, 18,942 participants). Certainty of the evidence was high for all of these cancer sites, except for breast cancer, which was of moderate certainty owing to imprecision, and non-melanoma skin cancer, which we judged as moderate certainty owing to high heterogeneity. RCTs with low risk of bias suggested increased melanoma risk.Results for most outcomes were similar when we included all RCTs in the meta-analysis, regardless of risk of bias. Selenium supplementation did not reduce overall cancer incidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14; 5 studies, 21,860 participants) nor mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 2 studies, 18,698 participants). Summary RRs for site-specific cancers showed limited changes compared with estimates from high-quality studies alone, except for liver cancer, for which results were reversed.In the largest trial, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial, selenium supplementation increased risks of alopecia and dermatitis, and for participants with highest background selenium status, supplementation also increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. RCTs showed a slightly increased risk of type 2 diabetes associated with supplementation. A hypothesis generated by the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial - that individuals with low blood selenium levels could reduce their risk of cancer (particularly prostate cancer) by increasing selenium intake - has not been confirmed. As RCT participants have been overwhelmingly male (88%), we could not assess the potential influence of sex or gender.We included 15 additional observational cohort studies (70 in total; over 2,360,000 participants). We found that lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 7 studies, 76,239 participants) and lower cancer mortality (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97; 7 studies, 183,863 participants) were associated with the highest category of selenium exposure compared with the lowest. Cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.14, 4 studies, 29,365 men) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, 2 studies, 18,244 women). Data show a decrease in risk of site-specific cancers for stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, bladder, and prostate cancers. However, these studies have major weaknesses due to study design, exposure misclassification, and potential unmeasured confounding due to lifestyle or nutritional factors covarying with selenium exposure beyond those taken into account in multi-variable analyses. In addition, no evidence of a dose-response relation between selenium status and cancer risk emerged. Certainty of evidence was very low for each outcome. Some studies suggested that genetic factors might modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk - an issue that merits further investigation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Well-designed and well-conducted RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of selenium supplements in reducing cancer risk (high certainty of evidence). Some RCTs have raised concerns by reporting a higher incidence of high-grade prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes in participants with selenium supplementation. No clear evidence of an influence of baseline participant selenium status on outcomes has emerged in these studies.Observational longitudinal studies have shown an inverse association between selenium exposure and risk of some cancer types, but null and direct relations have also been reported, and no systematic pattern suggesting dose-response relations has emerged. These studies suffer from limitations inherent to the observational design, including exposure misclassification and unmeasured confounding.Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that increasing selenium intake through diet or supplementation prevents cancer in humans. However, more research is needed to assess whether selenium may modify the risk of cancer in individuals with a specific genetic background or nutritional status, and to investigate possible differential effects of various forms of selenium. ※ The abstract text as collected and stored via the API by the pipeline. The key summary is written based solely on this text.

OBJECTIVE: The available evidence on selenium supplementation in the treatment of autoimmune thyroiditis (AIT) was inconclusive. This research serves to assess the effects of selenium supplementation in the treatment of AIT. METHODS: Online databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 10 June 2022. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The information on the randomized controlled trials of the included studies was extracted and synthesized. The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 6 systematic reviews with 75 RCTs were included. Only one study was rated as high quality. The meta-analysis showed that in the levothyroxine (LT4)-treated population, thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPO-Ab) levels decreased significantly in the selenium group at 3 months (SMD = -0.53, 95% CI: [-0.89, -0.17], p < 0.05, very low certainty) and 6 months (SMD = -1.95, 95% CI: [-3.17, -0.74], p < 0.05, very low certainty) and that thyroglobulin antibody (Tg-Ab) levels were not decreased. In the non-LT4-treated population, TPO-Ab levels decreased significantly in the selenium group at 3 and 6 months and did not decrease at 12 months. Tg-Ab levels decreased significantly in the selenium group at 3 and 6 months and did not decrease at 12 months. The adverse effects reported in the selenium group were not significantly different from those in the control group, and the certainty of evidence was low. CONCLUSION: Although selenium supplementation might reduce TPO-Ab levels at 3 and 6 months and Tg-Ab levels at 3 and 6 months in the non-LT4-treated population, this was based on a low certainty of evidence. ※ The abstract text as collected and stored via the API by the pipeline. The key summary is written based solely on this text.

Selenium is an essential nutrient for human health with a narrow range between essentiality and toxicity. Selenium is incorporated into several proteins that perform important functions in the body. With insufficient selenium intake, the most notable effect is Keshan disease, an endemic cardiomyopathy in children. Conversely, excessive selenium intake can result in selenosis, manifested as brittle nails and hair and gastro-intestinal disorders. As such, guidance values have been established to protect against both insufficient and excessive selenium exposures. Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) have been established as standard reference values for nutritional adequacy in North America. To protect against selenosis resulting from exposure to excessive amounts of selenium, several government and non-governmental agencies have established a range of guidance values. Exposure to selenium is primarily through the diet, but monitoring selenium intake is difficult. Biomonitoring is a useful means of assessing and monitoring selenium status for both insufficient and excessive exposures. However, to be able to interpret selenium biomonitoring data, levels associated with both DRIs and toxicity guidance values are required. Biomonitoring Equivalents (BEs) were developed for selenium in whole blood, plasma and urine. The BEs associated with assuring adequate selenium intake (Estimated Average Requirements - EAR) are 100, 80 and 10μg/L in whole blood, plasma and urine, respectively. The BEs associated with protection against selenosis range from 400 to 480μg/L in whole blood, 180-230μg/L in plasma, and 90-110μg/L in urine. These BE values can be used by both regulatory agencies and public health officials to interpret selenium biomonitoring data in a health risk context. ※ The abstract text as collected and stored via the API by the pipeline. The key summary is written based solely on this text.

BACKGROUND: Healthy dietary patterns are rich in micronutrients, but their influence on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks has not been systematically quantified. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to provide a comprehensive and most up-to-date evidence-based map that systematically quantifies the impact of micronutrients on CVD outcomes. METHODS: This study comprised a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled intervention trials of micronutrients on CVD risk factors and clinical events. RESULTS: A total of 884 randomized controlled intervention trials evaluating 27 types of micronutrients among 883,627 participants (4,895,544 person-years) were identified. Supplementation with n-3 fatty acid, n-6 fatty acid, l-arginine, l-citrulline, folic acid, vitamin D, magnesium, zinc, α-lipoic acid, coenzyme Q10, melatonin, catechin, curcumin, flavanol, genistein, and quercetin showed moderate- to high-quality evidence for reducing CVD risk factors. Specifically, n-3 fatty acid supplementation decreased CVD mortality (relative risk [RR]: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88-0.97), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78-0.92), and coronary heart disease events (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.80-0.93). Folic acid supplementation decreased stroke risk (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72-0.97), and coenzyme Q10 supplementation decreased all-cause mortality events (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49-0.94). Vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, and selenium showed no effect on CVD or type 2 diabetes risk. β-carotene supplementation increased all-cause mortality (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.05-1.15), CVD mortality events (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.06-1.18), and stroke risk (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01-1.17). CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation of some but not all micronutrients may benefit cardiometabolic health. This study highlights the importance of micronutrient diversity and the balance of benefits and risks to promote and maintain cardiovascular health in diverse populations. (Antioxidant Supplementation in the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases; CRD42022315165). ※ The abstract text as collected and stored via the API by the pipeline. The key summary is written based solely on this text.