Supplements hold potential to save billions in preventative healthcare, CRN reports

01 Sep 2022 --- The Council of Responsible Nutrition (CRN) has released a self-funded economic report saying evidence of using certain dietary supplement ingredients can reduce medical costs “directly and indirectly.”

The findings aim to analyze the potential health care cost savings that could be realized if at-risk individuals were to use certain dietary supplements that have been shown to lower disease event risk.

The Supplements to Savings report refers to chronic diseases and conditions, such as coronary artery disease, osteoporosis, age-related macular degeneration, cognitive decline, irritable bowel syndrome, and childhood cognitive development disorders, as the main field of medical savings.

According to the report, 75% of the health care spending in the US covers the costs of chronic diseases that could “potentially be avoided with preventative care.” It highlights that cumulative net target avoided costs for the period 2022-2030 would be $40.2 billion, for preventative hospitalization costs caused by omega 3.

“Identifying at-risk populations early and providing targeted nutritional interventions like dietary supplements is a cost-effective approach alongside other healthy habits,” says Andrea Wong, SVP of scientific and regulatory affairs at CRN.

“A steadily growing body of clinical research shows investing in preventive care through supplementation helps people avoid chronic conditions. This strategy is what we call a no-brainer,” Wong adds.

Contradiction? Criticism from several directionsThe report presents risk reduction rates for different diseases and conditions, when supplementing with individual vitamins.
The report highlights increased clinical research carried out over the last decades are advancing in the gastronomical field with probiotics and dietary supplements for high risk diseases.

The results showed that different supplements reduced the relative risk rates for different health conditions. Coronary artery disease showed 15.7%, irritable bowel syndrome showed 34.7% reduced risk, and cognitive decline showed 9.5% reduced risk. Testing was carried out comparing an intervention group to a control group. 

“From these types of analyses, risk and possible risk reduction can be calculated using a cost-benefit model, which can be useful for key decision makers (including patients, health care professionals, governments, insurance companies, and employers) in determining if a given regimen is cost-effective,” says the report.

However, a recent study published in JAMA suggests that the US population spends US$50 billion a year on vitamin and dietary supplements, referring to it as a “waste of money.” 

The study argues evidence supporting supplements to have a preventive effect on cardiovascular diseases is insignificant and that a “healthy diet and exercise is the key” to good health, and supplements should only be used for vitamin deficiency as there is no such thing as “a magic pill.”

Additionally, research has shown the adverse effects of taking supplements. The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety recently warned the public about the dangers of vitamin D overdose. It stressed that “too many supplements may be as bad as too little.” 

Regulatory and authoritative battleThe research lacked to include several factors such as dietary patterns and combination of supplements. 
Doctors have also warned of overdosing on vitamin D, presenting an extreme case of a man suffering severe side effects such as kidney injury, leading to hospitalization.  

Steve Mister, president and CEO and CRN, has previously criticized the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for putting “too much emphasis on risk and not enough attention to the fact that there are benefits from these products. The American Herbal Products Association provided a similar critique to the agency, as health risks outweigh the benefits of supplements in the campaign.

The FDA has also been accused of not doing enough in terms of supplement regulation while responding that a lack of authority from regulation is present, requiring congress to step in. 

Missing factors
The research had some limitations, and some factors were not taken into consideration, which the study stresses.

“This study does not control for average food intake of these ingredients because it is assumed that most of the clinical studies did not fully control for food intake either, suggesting that the observed effect sizes have taken into account some food-based intake.” 

“Finally, variability due to differences in sample size, research methodologies and study protocols, and patient population characteristics among the included studies was high, making a comparison of the relative efficacy of dietary supplements unadvisable,” concludes the study. 

The supplements were tested individually and therefore, it cannot confirm that combining supplements has health-beneficial or adverse effects.  

By Beatrice Wihlander