Usefulness of Phytoestrogens in Treatment of Arterial Hypertension. by Peertechz Journals

Archives of Clinical Hypertension Garcia Garcia MA1*, Rosero Arenas2, Martinez Cornejo A1 and Perez Lluna L3 UCI Hospital Sagunto, Valencia, Spain C Salud Cheste, Valencia, Spain 3 Servicio M. Interna Hospital Sagunto, Valencia, Spain 1 2

Dates: Received: 10 March, 2016; Accepted: 11 April, 2016; Published: 12 April, 2016

eertechz

Research Article

Usefulness of Phytoestrogens in Treatment of Arterial Hypertension. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

*Corresponding author: Miguel Angel Garcia Garcia, Avenida Doctor Peset Aleixandre No. 81 gate 21 , 46009 Valencia , SPAIN, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital de Sagunto, 46520 Puerto de Sagunto / Valencia, SPAIN, Tel: 03699743390; E-mail:

Background: It has been suggested that phytoestrogens may have utility in the control of arterial hypertension.

www.peertechz.com

Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, and the main outcome was the decrease of blood pressure.

Keywords: Phytoestrogens, Isoflavones; Soy protein; Blood pressure; Meta-analysis

Abstract

Results: Decrease in systolic (- 0,15 mmHg, CI 95% from -0,24 to -0,05) and diastolic (-0,14 mmHg, CI 95% from -0,25 to -0,03) blood pressure were observed in patients taking phytoestrogens, but this difference was not clinically relevant. There can be a little greater decrease in Asian patients and in patients with higher baseline blood pressure values. Conclusion: The global effect of phytoestrogens seems of small amount in reducing blood pressure. Nevertheless, it has not been realized a clinical trials about the efficacy of these products in no mild hypertensive patients, similar to real life.

Introduction and Background Soy is a legume of Asian origin that contains 2 main components, phytoestrogens (PHE) and soy protein (SP), whose beneficial effects on the cardiovascular system (among other) have been studied over the last 30 years. It has been described its benefits to improve lipid and glycemic profiles, as well as to reduce the harmful effects of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. Other benefits attributed to soy and its derivate (PHE and SP) are: reduce the symptoms associated with menopause, osteoporosis fractures and progression of metastatic cancers (prostate, breast, lung, stomach, etc). It has been suggested that PHE may have utility in the control of arterial hypertension. This disease affects 1000 millions of people all around the world and is a modifiable cardiovascular risk factor [1]. Its prevalence in adults is elevated (26,4%) [2], with an improbable control [3]. An increase of BP (20/10 mmHg) is associated with doubling the risk of CV disease, and on the other side, reductions of 4-5/2-3 mmHg are associated with lower risk of CV disease [4,5]. Adecuate dietary intervention with proper medical therapy are important in controlling blood pressure (BP) according to American Heart Association (AHA) and the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee (JNC 7) [4,6]. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended intake of 25 g of SP [7], to leverage its cardio protective effects, which could be related to its agonist action on estrogenic receptor. The main described PHE are isoflavones (IF) and their active principles daidzein and genistein. They could produce arterial vasodilatation, improvement of endothelial function and decrease of BP in animals, all these effects mediated by nitric oxide mechanisms [8]. Previous clinical trials and meta-analysis [9-11], have previously shown inconsistent results: results without statistical significance or with

little clinical impact [9], statistically significant reduction of systolic BP (SBP) [10], or statistically significant reduction of SBP and diastolic BP (DBP) [11]; these differences could be due to the different trials included in the numerical analysis, and different aspects of it (length of intervention, parallel vs cross-over design, amount of used active principle –IF or SP-, etc). To clarify the usefulness of PHE in reducing BP, we performed a new systematic review and meta-analysis. It has been considered this time aspects such as: age of participants, the fact that BP is –or isn´t- the primary outcome in the design of the study, country, etc. In addition, several metaregresions have been performed to assess the mathematical relationship between BP reduction achieved and the initial BP, the dose of active principles, etc.

Material and Methods Our systematic review is aimed at randomized clinical trials involving adult patients (older than 18 years), hypertensive and nonhypertensive, and the main objective of the study were controlling BP, cholesterol and other lipids levels, symptoms associated with menopause, osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus (including chronic complications), metastatic breast and lung cancer, etc. The intervention in these studies was the addition of PHE, in capsule form or dietary supplement. The estimated IF (mg) or SP (g) daily amount was noted. The control treatment was placebo or an inactive derivate (milk protein, casseinate, etc). The measured result was the decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure during the study period. This systematic review was registered on the web PROSPERO. We have also made searching several databases such as PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Trip Database and CENTRAL data

Citation: Garcia Garcia MA, Arenas R, Martinez CA, Perez LL (2016) Usefulness of Phytoestrogens in Treatment of Arterial Hypertension. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch Clin Hypertens 1(2): 029-034.

029

Garcia Garcia et al. (2016)

base of Cochrane collaboration. The search strategy PUBMED was: “Phytoestrogens” (Mesh) OR “Isoflavones”(Mesh) OR “Soy Foods”(Mesh) OR “Soybeans”(Mesh) OR “daidzein” (Supplementary concept); filters: Clinical Trial Phase III; Clinical Trial Phase IV; Systematic Reviews; Humans. We obtained 197 studies (clinical trials and meta-analysis). The other search strategies were similar (Table A, Appendix). We also looked for systematic reviews and meta-analysis reviews obtained through searches in PUBMED and Trip Database, although the primary outcome may or may not be the control of BP. We have not included in this search works published only in Chinese or Japanese language. The analysis of the original works and data collection was carried out by pairs (MAG and MAR); in case of differences of opinion, the point of view of a third researcher (LPL) was required. The manuscript was translated into English by another researcher (AMC). The final review of the work was done by the four authors. We have made an estimation of decrease in systolic and diastolic BP between the end of the active period and the initial moment. In all studies assessed, it has been measured BP at the start and at the end of intervention, in each treatment arm. The variables retrieved from the original work has been the variation of BP and standard deviation (SD). In those works where these data are described, they are incorporated directly into the estimation; in those works that didn´t include these data, calculations are made as described in Appendix. We performed a meta-analysis with a weighted mean difference according to the random effects model (Der Simonian and Laird) assessing the possible statistical heterogeneity between estimated effect in the included studies. Study quality was estimated by Jadad´s scale [12], and with the risk of bias tool of the Cochrane collaboration. Finally, we have considered the Impact Factor of the journal where the work was published. We valued the presence of publication bias using the funnel plot, and calculating the number of unpublished studies (Glesser-Olkin method). The presence of statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran - Q index and I 2 index. Finally we assessed the effect of small studies in the overall estimate with the Egger´s graphical method. Statistical calculators and graphics were performed by STATA v.14 and REVMAN v.5.3 (Cochrane collaboration).

Results Flow-chart of evaluated and excluded studies are shown in Figure 1. After removing duplicate works and leaving out systematic reviews and observational studies, we finally left 346 clinical trials. Most of them (246) were not included because no BP was measured in them. Finally our work includes 100 clinical trials, and 71 were included in the mathematical elaboration (meta-analysis). The characteristics of included studies are shown in Table B (Appendix). The average age of included patients is between 5065 years; patients are probably non-hypertensive (some works are

030

Figure 1: Flow-chart describing included studies on our work.SS.

planned in pre-hypertensive and grade 1 hypertensive patients, hypertensive patients are excluded in other works, and information about inclusion of hypertensive patients is absent in other jobs); and there are a greater percentage of included women in these works (with a high proportion of postmenopausal and non-taking hormone replacement therapy women). Active treatments are PHE administered in capsules, sachets or simply dietary recommendations. Control treatments were either placebo or probably inactive principles (milk protein, casein). The duration of intervention was variable, from 4 weeks to 2 years. The primary outcome of a lot of studies was not the reduction of BP, but variations in lipid profile or menopausal symptoms. The methodological quality of included studies, or their risk of bias, is summarized en Figure 2. Most of them are described as double blind and randomized, although the description of blinding or randomizing methods is usually insufficient. 55 works (75%) have been conducted in western countries (22 USA, 11 Australia, 9 Italia, etc), and the remaining 16 in Asian countries (7 Iran, 5 China, 2 Japan, etc). There is no numeric data of decrease of BP in 25 studies (references included in Appendix #7, 17, 18, 20, 29, 34, 35, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 62, 63, 69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 84, 91 and 93); most of them show results that are not statistically significant. In others, even though the measurement of BP is mentioned in their Method section, this

Garcia Garcia et al. (2016)

Figure 2: Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

is not included in the Results section; and one study (# 99) divided the data in 2 groups, equal producers and non-producers, a situation that does not allow an appropriate mathematical operation. Other 4 studies (references #25, 72, 86 and 97) expressed results with trend to greater reduction of BP with PHE, but with impossible mathematical management. We finally have processable numerical results from 71 studies, and with these meta-analysis was performed. Figure 3 shows the global evaluation of the achieved reduction in systolic BP (SBP) comparing active treatment with the control arm. The found difference is statistically significant (-0,15 mmHg SBP drop, CI 95% from -0,24 to -0,05) but lacks clinical impact. The high value of Q (p< 0,00001) and I2 (65%) agree with the presence of a high degree of statistical heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses including studies that were primarily aimed (Figure 4) at control of BP shows similar results. Finally, the isolated analysis of works that provides BP SSdifference and SD (Figure A, Appendix) shows, as in the previous cases, results of limited clinical relevance. We found similar results in the evaluation of reduction in diastolic BP (DBP) in the global evaluation (Figure B), in the sensitivity analysis of primary directed to BP control studies (Figure C) and in the evaluation of studies which show difference of DBP and SD (Figure D, Appendix). Findings with DBP decrease are similar to those described with SBP; we have presented results in relation with SBP decrease. The graphical representation of possible publication bias is shown in Figure 5. It can be seen in the funnel plot that a majority distribution of studies are around the mean estimation; the point of 4 papers are relatively far from the central point cloud, with estimations that show greater reductions in systolic BP (between -2,6 and -1,5 mmHg); on the other hand, no works were seen with similar estimations on the other side of the point cloud. Instead, calculating unpublished studies by the method of Glesser Olkin (Table C, Appendix) shows a negative result (i.e., probably there is no non-identified study to discover). Figure E (Appendix) shows a weighted line of effects in large and small studies, suggesting that there is not an effect of small studies.

Figure 3: Forest plot of systolic blood pressure decrease of all studies included in the meta-analysis.

031

The BP lowering observed in works of greater and lesser quality are similar, with similar effects regardless of the quality of study (evaluated by Jadad´s scale [12], comparing 2 subgroups (>= 3 points –better quality- vs < 3 points –bad quality-)(Figure F, Appendix) and with meta-regression (Figure G, Appendix). There is also no

Garcia Garcia et al. (2016)

SBP decrease % author

year

SMD (95% CI)

Weight

Appel

2005

-0.14 (-0.36, 0.07)

11.48

Burke

2001

-0.48 (-1.42, 0.46)

3.29

2005

-0.46 (-0.69, -0.23)

11.30

2011

-0.47 (-0.76, -0.17)

10.24

Liu

2013

-0.33 (-0.69, 0.03)

9.20

Liu

2015

0.03 (-0.26, 0.32)

10.30

Meyer

2004

-0.07 (-0.65, 0.51)

6.18

Miragharani

2013

-0.54 (-1.06, -0.01)

6.83

Rivas

2002

-1.86 (-2.61, -1.12)

4.53

Sagara

2003

-0.32 (-0.88, 0.23)

6.41

Teede

2001

-0.36 (-0.65, -0.06)

10.25

Teede

2003

0.19 (-0.12, 0.50)

10.00

-0.32 (-0.52, -0.13)

100.00

Overall (I-squared = 70.7%, p = 0.000) NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis -2

-1

Weighted mean difference

Figure 4: Forest plot of systolic blood pressure decrease of studies whose primary outcome was decrease of blood pressure.

Studies p < 1% 1% < p < 5%

5% < p < 10%

Standard error

p > 10%

-3

-2

-1 SBP decrease (mmHg)

Figure 5: Funnel plot of included studies in the meta-analysis.

difference in comparison of parallel vs cross-over studies (Figure H, Appendix). A slight difference in effect is seen in Asian countries (SBP -0,40 mmHg, CI 95% -0,66 to -0,14) compared with western countries (SBP -0,08 mmHg, CI 95% -0,17 to 0,01) (Figure 6). This difference is statistically significant but seems not clinically relevant. Metaregression assessment by the amount of active principle administered shows inconclusive results (Figures I and J, Appendix). The slope of the regression line is substantially horizontal in both groups, suggesting that the limited achieved effect is independent of the amount of administered IF / SP. There is also no relationship between BP lowering achieved with the length of treatment (Figure K, Appendix). The observed SBP decline is slightly higher in patients with higher initial systolic BP values (Figure 7), although this decrease is again neither statistically significant nor clinically relevant (additional decrease of 0,5 mmHg comparing basal BP of 150-160 mmHg

032

vs 100-110 mmHg). There is also no decrease in SBP according to the proportion of included women in the study, the mean age of included population, or Impact Factor of the journal where the work was published (Figures L, M and N, Appendix). Additional data are included in Table E (Appendix).

Discusion The results of our work are simple, and point in the same direction of our previous work [8]. Treatment with PHE achieved a not clinically important lowering of systolic and diastolic BP, even with higher amount of active principle and longer period of treatment. This is the same result found with studies were the primary outcome was BP. No difference was found even if we consider patient´s age and gender, type of study (parallel or cross-over) or methodological quality. We can consider PHE /soy derivatives as pharmaconutrients, i.e., elements with nutritional characteristics and beneficial pharmacological properties. With this pharmacological aspect, it seems therefore important the administered dose and length of treatment. It would be logical that with a greater amount or duration of treatment, greater reduction in BP is achieved. However, this Figure is not observed in our study, because (perhaps) there is a little overall reduction in BP. Other works describe that commercial preparations often contain a mixture of ingredients of unknown concentrations [13,14], there can be genetic differences, as equal producers seem to present a more positive response to PHE intervention in treating perimenopausal symptoms [15] and probably in treating hypertension; differences have been reported in the prevalence of equol producer phenotype among different ethnicities, with higher prevalence in soy consuming Asian than in western populations [16], it is probably related to years of adaptation of Asians to soy, and by supposed beneficial effects of soy, should not be extrapolated to whites and other ethnicities who historically had no contact with soy [13]. By last, soy consumption per capita, according to United Nations Organization (ONU) data, is < 1 g/day in most European or North American countries, except vegetarians or Asian immigrants [17], it is found that soy consumption in Asian countries is 20-50 g/day [18] and increased consumption of PHE is associated with higher circulating levels of phytoestrogens and their metabolites. Several observational studies developed in Japan, with higher intake of PHE, show less cardiovascular and tumoral disorders [19,20], but the answer to this question may be in the lifestyle, and not only in the intake of these products. Certainly, our work has limitations. Included patients have little co-morbidity, and frequently are no defined as hypertensive or nonhypertensive. Despite the huge efforts made to find most clinical trials, it is very difficult to exclude the existence of works focused on hypertensive patients or with significant co-morbidities. The absence of numeric results in 29 studies (mostly with commentaries as “not significant differences”), and the potencial presence of reporting bias (BP measured but not registered) make it less likely that taking PHE is associated with decrease in BP. The decision of not including (by language difficulty) original Chinese or Japanese works can take away the option of a more positive effect (in these countries there seems to

Garcia Garcia et al. (2016)

SBP decrease % year

SMD (95% CI)

Weight

Allison

2003

-0.15 (-0.54, 0.24)

1.67

Anderson

2005

0.19 (-0.23, 0.61)

1.61

Anderson

2007

-0.15 (-0.75, 0.45)

1.20

Appel

2005

-0.14 (-0.36, 0.07)

2.10

Atkinson

2004

-0.22 (-0.52, 0.07)

1.91

Aubertin

2008

-0.41 (-1.05, 0.22)

1.12

Beavers

2015

0.64 (-0.18, 1.47)

0.83

Burke

2001

-0.48 (-1.42, 0.46)

0.69

Cancellieri

2007

-0.27 (-0.63, 0.08)

1.77

Casiglia

1991

-0.28 (-0.75, 0.20)

1.46

Chiechi

2002

-0.08 (-0.58, 0.42)

1.41

Clifton

2015

0.52 (0.11, 0.93)

1.64

Colacurci

2005

-0.43 (-0.96, 0.09)

1.35

Colado

2010

0.29 (-0.43, 1.01)

0.98

Cuevas

2003

0.00 (-0.65, 0.65)

1.09

Curtis

2012

0.04 (-0.36, 0.45)

1.63

Dodin

2005

-0.24 (-0.54, 0.05)

1.92

Evans

2007

0.25 (-0.35, 0.84)

1.21

Garrido

2006

0.28 (-0.45, 1.02)

0.96

Gleason

2009

-0.50 (-1.23, 0.22)

0.97

González

2007

-1.46 (-2.08, -0.85)

1.17

Guevara

2012

-0.08 (-0.56, 0.40)

1.46

Hallund-Bugel

2006

0.33 (-0.18, 0.84)

1.39

Han

2002

0.00 (-0.44, 0.44)

1.55

2011

-0.47 (-0.76, -0.17)

1.92

Heger

2006

-0.42 (-0.80, -0.04)

1.70

Hermansen

2001

0.11 (-0.51, 0.73)

1.16

Hermansen

2005

0.12 (-0.30, 0.54)

1.61

Hidalgo

2005

0.15 (-0.23, 0.53)

1.70

Jayagopal

2002

-0.28 (-0.77, 0.21)

1.43

Jenkins

1999

0.13 (-0.37, 0.63)

1.41

Jenkins

2000

-0.17 (-0.73, 0.38)

1.29

Jenkins

2002

0.06 (-0.38, 0.50)

1.55

Jorissen

2002

0.43 (-0.02, 0.87)

1.54

Katz

2007

0.13 (-0.46, 0.72)

1.21

Khaodhian

2008

-0.14 (-0.54, 0.27)

1.64

Kreijkamp

2005

0.24 (-0.04, 0.52)

1.96

Kurowska

1997

0.31 (-0.17, 0.79)

1.46

Llaneza

2010

0.07 (-0.35, 0.48)

1.62

Lukaczer

2006

-0.28 (-0.89, 0.33)

1.18

Meyer

2004

-0.07 (-0.65, 0.51)

1.24

Puska

2004

0.09 (-0.26, 0.45)

1.77

Rivas

2002

-1.86 (-2.61, -1.12)

0.94

Sagara

2003

-0.32 (-0.88, 0.23)

1.28

Santo

2008

-0.18 (-1.08, 0.72)

0.73

Sathyapalan

2011

-0.22 (-0.77, 0.33)

1.29

Simons

2000

-0.06 (-0.68, 0.56)

1.16

Squadrito

2002

-0.31 (-0.82, 0.20)

1.39

Teede

2001

-0.36 (-0.65, -0.06)

1.92

Teede

2003

0.19 (-0.12, 0.50)

1.88

Teede

2006

-0.08 (-0.52, 0.37)

1.53

vanNielen

2014

0.19 (-0.52, 0.91)

0.98

Vigna

2000

0.29 (-0.16, 0.74)

1.53

Washburn

1999

-0.08 (-0.47, 0.31)

1.68

Wong-Taylor

2012

0.23 (-0.58, 1.03)

0.86

-0.08 (-0.17, 0.01)

77.62

author occidental

Subtotal (I-squared = 51.2%, p = 0.000) . asia Azadbakht

2007

0.18 (-0.24, 0.61)

1.58

Azadbakht

2009

-1.49 (-2.34, -0.65)

0.80

Azadbakht

2011

-0.65 (-1.24, -0.05)

1.21

Bakhtiary

2012

-2.58 (-3.34, -1.82)

0.92

Brussaard

1981

0.08 (-0.48, 0.64)

1.28

2005

-0.46 (-0.69, -0.23)

2.08

Husain

2015

-0.52 (-1.03, -0.01)

1.38

Kwak

2012

-0.57 (-1.07, -0.07)

1.40

Liao

2007

0.14 (-0.37, 0.65)

1.39

Liu

2013

-0.33 (-0.69, 0.03)

1.75

Liu

2015

0.03 (-0.26, 0.32)

1.92

Miragharani

2013

-0.54 (-1.06, -0.01)

1.35

Takahira

2011

-0.20 (-0.79, 0.39)

1.21

Uesugi

2004

-0.73 (-1.10, -0.35)

1.71

Wong

2010

0.14 (-0.43, 0.72)

1.24

Yildiz

2005

0.30 (-0.33, 0.92)

1.15

-0.40 (-0.66, -0.14)

22.38

-0.15 (-0.24, -0.05)

100.00

Subtotal (I-squared = 79.5%, p = 0.000) . Overall (I-squared = 65.1%, p = 0.000) NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis

-2

-1

Weighted mean difference Figure 6: Sensitivity analysis of studies developed in western vs Asian countries.

be a higher effect). The net effect of these opposite limitations seems to be neutral. Also, mathematical calculation of standard deviation (SD) could not be totally correct; given the absence of data in original studies, it was decided to make this approach; nevertheless, the estimated mean difference seems correct (not biased), and maybe it is just an erroneous approach of the dispersion (SD) of that value; either way, the sensitivity analysis including only works that shows these values (difference in BP and SD) gives similar results. In a literature review [21], the ability of PHE to reduce BP is showed -in this work authors do not show any trial without BP declining, as we show in our work-. However, with a less comprehensive obtaining of studies, they suggest the concept that soy supplement may be beneficial during the development but not in established phases of hypertension [21]. Our review shows that PHE does not seem very effective in pre-hypertension or mild hypertension. In view of this reflection and our results, clinical trials with more real patients (higher degree, 2-3, of hypertension; or patients with comorbidities) must be carried out.

Conclussions Treatment with PHE gets slight decreases of systolic and diastolic BP, with limited clinical impact. With these findings, we cannot make a recommendation of taking PHE as categorical as in the late twentieth century. It seems to be greater BP decrease in Asian populations compared with western groups, and in patients with greater baseline BP values.

Acknowledgement Our gratitude to Manuel Arranz, from Library of the Valencian School of Health Studies (EVES) for his unvaluable help with the strategy search; to Rosario García, librarian of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Valencia, Jaime Fragoso de Castro (Glaxo), Victoria Ferragut (Pfizer) and Pilar Sánchez (Astra-Zeneca) by their help in searching works; to Dr Joaquin Primo, from Hospital de Sagunto, by the use of his Excel spreadsheet (available at www. redcaspe.org); and finally to Josep María Domenech, Robert Sesma y Abel Manzanera, from Laboratory of Stadistics in Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (www.metodo.uab.cat) by their help and their theaching in Stadistics.

WE KNEW BEFORE

- Soy derivatives have pleiotropic and protective cardiovascular 0

properties.

- AHA recommended their intake, based on these healthy properties.

WMD -1

WE KNOW NOW (WITH OUR WORK)

- Soy derivatives intake gets blood pressure decrease that is

-2

statistically significant but not clinically important.

- Blood pressure decrease is higher in Asian populations and in

-3 100

120

basal SBP (mmHg)

140

160

patients with higher baseline levels of blood pressure.

IN THE FUTURE Figure 7: Scatter plot and regression line to evaluate relationship between systolic blood pressure decrease and initial systolic blood pressure.

033

- Meta-analysis can be completed including articles originally

Garcia Garcia et al. (2016)

published in Chinese and Japanese. It is important to conduct clinical trials of utility of phytoestrogens in hypertensive patients, not only prehypertensive or mild hypertensive ones.

10. Taku K, Lin N, Cai D, Hu J, Zhao X, et al. (2010) Effects of soy isoflavone extract supplements on blood pressure in adult humans: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. J Hypertens 28: 1971-1982.

References

11. Dong JY, Tong X, Wu ZW, Xun PC, He K, et al. (2011) Effect of soya protein on blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Nutr 2011; 106: 317-326.

1. Liu XX, Li SH, Chen JZ, Sun K, Wang XJ, et al. (2012) Effect of a soy isoflavones on blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr, Metab and Cardiovasc Dis 22: 463-470.

12. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, et al. (1996) Assessing the quality reports of randomized controlled trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17: 1-12.

2. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Muntner P, Whelton PK, et al. (2005) Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet 365: 217223.

13. Jargin SV (2014) Soy and phytoestrogens: possible side effects. GMS Ger Med Sci 12: Doc18.

3. Llisterri Caro JL, Rodríguez Roca GC, Alonso Moreno FJ, Lou Arnal S, Divisón Garrote JA, et al. (2004) control de la presión arterial en la población hipertensa española atendida en Atención Primaria. Med Clin (Barc) 122: 165-171.

14. Leclercq G, de Cremoux P, This P, Jacquot Y (2011) Lack of sufficient information on the specificity and selectivity of commercial phytoestrogens preparations for therapeutic purposes. Maturitas 68: 56-64. 15. Castelo-Branco C, Soveral I (2013) Phytoestrogens and bone health at different reproductive stages. Gynecol Endocrinol 29: 735-743.

4. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, et al. (2003) seventh report of the Join National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation and treatment of high blood pressure. Hypertension 42: 12061252.

16. Song KB, Atkinson C, Frankenfeld CL, Jokela T, Wähälä K, et al. (2006) Prevalence of daidzein-metabolizing phenotypes differs between Caucasian and Korean American women and girls. J Nutr 136: 1347-1351.

5. McInnes GT (2005) Lowering blood pressure for cardiovascular risk reduction. J Hypertens 23: S3-S8.

17. González Cañete N, Durán Agüero S (2014) Isoflavonas de soya y evidencias sobre la protección cardiovascular. Nutr Hosp 29: 1271-1282.

6. Appel LJ, Brands MW, Daniels SR, Karanja N, Elmer PJ, et al. (2006) Dietary approaches to prevent and treat hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension 47: 296-308.

18. de Kleijn MJ, van der Schouw YT, Wilson PW, Adlercreutz H, Mazur W, et al. (2001) Intake of dietary phytoestrogens is low in postmenopausal women in the United States: the Framingham study (1-4). J Nutr 131: 1826-1832.

7. (1999) Food labeling: health claims; soy protein and coronary heart disease. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Final rule. Fed Regist 64: 57700–57733.

19. Krebs EE, Ensrud KE, MacDonald R, Wilt TJ (2004) Phytoestrogens for treatment of menopausal symptoms: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 104: 824-836.

8. Squadrito F, Altavilla D, Squadrito G, Saitta A, Cucinotta D, et al. (2002) Genistein supplementation and estrogen replacement therapy improve endotelial dysfunction induced by ovariectomy in rats. Cardiovasc Res 45: 454-462. 9. Rosero Arenas MA, Rosero Arenas E, Portaceli Armiñana MA, García García MA (2008) Usefulness of phyto-oestrogens in reduction of blood pressure. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Aten Primaria 40: 177-186.

20. Sacks FM, Lichtenstein A, Van Horn L, Harris W, Kris-Etherton P, et al. (2006) Soy protein, isoflavones and cardiovascular health. An American Heart Association science advisory for professionals from the Nutrition Committee. Circulation J 113: 1034-1044. 21. Carlson S, Peng N, Prasain JK, Wyss JM (2008) The effects of botanical dietary supplements on cardiovascular, cognitive and metabolic function in males and females. Gend Med 5: S76-S90.

Copyright: © 2016 Garcia Garcia MA, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

034