I think I posted some things that show there is much more than zero evidence for heart failure but I’ll let everyone decide for themselves
1 Like
I wrote “zero evidence” for prevention. That’s a fact.
For heart failure, Cochrane concludes: Coenzyme Q10 for heart failure
The included studies provide moderate‐quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 probably reduces all‐cause mortality and hospitalisation for heart failure. There is low‐quality evidence of inconclusive results as to whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on the risk of myocardial infarction, or stroke. Because of very low‐quality evidence, it is very uncertain whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on either left ventricular ejection fraction or exercise capacity. There is low‐quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 may increase the risk of adverse effects, or have little to no difference.
There is currently no convincing evidence to support or refute the use of coenzyme Q10 for heart failure. Future trials are needed to confirm our findings.
There’s a 2024 Chinese meta-study that found benefits: Efficacy and safety of coenzyme Q10 in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 2024
In total, 33 studies were included in this meta-analysis, which showed that all-cause mortality [RR = 0.64, 95% CI (0.48, 0.85), P = 0.002; GRADE: moderate quality], hospitalization for heart failure [RR = 0.50, 95% CI (0.37, 0.67), P < 0.00001; GRADE: moderate quality], New York Heart Association classification [MD = − 0.29, 95% CI (− 0.39, − 0.19), P < 0.00001; GRADE: low quality], and brain natriuretic peptide level [MD = − 91.97, 95% CI (− 103.11, − 80.83), P < 0.00001; GRADE: low quality] were lower in the coenzyme Q10 group than in the control group.
That’s massive! Looks too good to be true to me. Indeed, as shown in Fig. 5C, most studies were small and lasted less than 3 months. Only two studies lasted 3 months or more: Feng 2010 and Zhang 2015. What are those?
Feng 2010 is: Feng Z, Bai T, Zhang L, Li X, Wang H, Wu R, Liu Y. Clinical Observation on 206 cases CHF treated with CoQ10 combined with routine therapy. Hebei Med. 2010;16(10):1184–7. => There’s NO TRACE of that paper on the internet. It just doesn’t seem to exist. In any case it’s from the Hebei Med Journal = trash.
Zhang 2015 is Zhang Q. Observations on the efficacy of coenzyme Q10 in chronic heart failure. Med Front. 2015;5(35):131.. Same, it doesn’t seem to exist. And single author = weird. Probably a trash paper as well.
Are those AI hallucinations? I’ll write to the journal. In any case, evidence in favor of Q10 in heart failure is very weak.
3 Likes
Correction:
- Feng is this one: published only in Chinese in a low-quality Chinese-only regional medical journal: http://dianda.cqvip.com/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=35292089&from=Qikan_Article_Detail
- Can’t find Zhang but it’s probably the same kind of shit.
Wouldn’t the part about the studies not lasting a while actually have some more merit since the results were found in a short span of time? Even if a lot of those studies were small, they add up since we are talking about 33 studies that were included in a meta analysis (in 2024). I know it’s not perfect but that’s still enough of a signal in my opinion.
The summary says “In total, 33 studies were included in this meta-analysis” but the text says “Ultimately, 32 RCTs were included after reviewing the full-text of the remaining 386 records”. This already shows the authors’ amateurism.
They only analyzed duration for the 6MWT (6-min walk test). For whatever reason, they didn’t look at that for all-cause mortality. Anyway, 12 studies evaluated 6MWT. Eleven studies reported all-cause mortality.
Real Facts…
Quick AI Overview
In 1978, British biochemist
Dr. Peter Mitchell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for formulating the chemiosmotic theory. His groundbreaking work identified the crucial role of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) in energy production (ATP synthesis) within the mitochondria of cells. This discovery established CoQ10 as essential for cellular respiration.
Key details regarding this award and CoQ10:
- The Discovery: While CoQ10 was discovered in 1957 by Dr. Frederick Crane, it was Dr. Peter Mitchell who, in the 1960s, determined how it facilitates electron transport and proton movement across the inner mitochondrial membrane to generate energy.
- Nobel Recognition: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1978 was awarded for his contributions to the understanding of biological energy transfer.
- Importance of CoQ10: CoQ10, or ubiquinone, is vital for cellular energy (95% of the body’s energy needs), with high concentrations in the heart.
- Impact: Mitchell’s work demonstrated that CoQ10 is crucial for the electron transport chain, which is foundational to understanding cellular function and bioenergetics.
Review posting below
Thanks for the useless AI slope, Joseph. Indeed, 0 evidence that CoQ10 supplementation can prevent heart failure as of today.
1 Like
Yes, You are not going to like my reply.
In Your view NOT other.
How many medical published have you?
That’s an easy thing to test. I agree with Antoine. His view is not unique. To be honest if you had read the thread you would know.
The problem is that if the body is maintaining sufficient levels of something supplementing is pretty useless.
2 Likes
Indeed.
BTW It’s pretty easy to have a blood test for CoQ10 in the blood and to supplement if it’s too low and you want it to be at normal values.
Like for vitamin D, all the studies that only look at supplementation and not actual levels are going to give widely inconsistent results.
Unfortunately, CoQ10 blood levels are not very reliable.
From Vera AI
“A blood CoQ10 test can be analytically reliable only if it is performed by a laboratory using a validated HPLC/LC-based method with strict pre-analytical handling; otherwise (especially for “ubiquinol/ubiquinone ratio”) results are often not reliable enough for clinical decision-making.“
I used Labcorp’s Coenzyme Q10, Total which uses Liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS-MS).
Difficult to know if it’s accurate but at least it gives an idea.
1 Like
I looked into it. It really isn’t the best lab test. Supplementation raises the level, but it doesn’t seem like the baseline level prior to supplementation really says much about intracellular CoQ10 levels.
1 Like
@adssx could you find the form of CoQ10 they used?
As I couldn’t find, I presume they used the ubiquinone (the oxidized form), which is the most common (cheap) in standard supplements and clinical trials unless specified otherwise.
This aligns with why cellular uptake was limited – studies show that in older adults (similar to the population studied in the actual study you shared), ubiquinone often boosts plasma levels effectively but struggles with tissue penetration due to reduced absorption and conversion efficiency with age.
I suggest you read studies that used the ubiquinol (the reduced/active form) with lower doses.
I guess they used ubiquinol because they cite Zhang Y, Liu J, Chen XQ, Oliver Chen CY. Ubiquinol is superior to ubiquinone to enhance coenzyme Q10 status in older men. Food Funct. 2018;9(11):5653–9.
However I don’t have access to the full paper so I might be wrong.
Ubiquinol is the form I have been using for 10+ years now. Some say it’s cheaper to stick with the regular form and simply double the dose to match the absorption rate of Ubiquinol but who knows.
@adssx Believing “they cited a ubiquinol study → they must have used ubiquinol” is a misunderstanding of how citations function. I work on the research field and if I tell you that many times when checking studies cited the result are ridiculous… (We have a citation problem that no one addresses.)
But anyways, science is not based on 1 study. Read the ones that are open for the public. Check results along with the form of the molecule used, dose, population, even time of taking it (if with food or not).
Meta-analyses and overviews note ubiquinol (usually 100-200mg) is often 2-4 times better absorbed in older adults or those with health conditions (e.g., cardiac patients), due to better micellarization during digestion, greater cellular uptake, and GSH-dependent mechanisms. If ubiquinone, look for technologies similar to the "Micro-SR™: micronization + sustained-release matrix for better solubility, plasma absorption, and steady levels over time.
What’s your opinion on Ubiquinol/CoQ10? Do you think it has any use cases?
1 Like
If you’re convinced you’re right @Raquel (you might be) you can just buy the article and see for yourself. Will be more useful that your current comments.