}VH9=oo,5k&d9>mm7Ȓ⅐qVuKl`$H^7lF^ؚ{~ubx`|"J4bZ 5TrYsMX?VbP([_7Uz'vun'om}aVBG`'MF9n{[ u[)7T8PrK].T(vk%G%ҫK2 \|6\riZ :QFᒰ3Bb^A- Zn (kmirwmy8QOFMݱJc,B(Wr77@Q2hD\o2 x`2q@\ Q^;.S6ZW=ZK0l*Sը^Tb,,T X=fNd\XLxXsQMXw^ &cطToF bjtlFeecu^~Qjvҫj̆ds\7^8}ҺԪճG԰~ɻkzc.ne;/vl1Sr #fȟ-]Ywk<_7G<{~X}t׷NvӨVON٫o+K-˯k{mQdڻG;c?˽z;J+ i\n[tf]BV/#U^::j]WҮh+`o/O_07xuJZΧ=|.¬Wi]jsm=Z<;o\nTkziyQQxwSeOSn[vb5{Fwz]V[4^k\R\9jU֊D{VO{ggjq{mγҕ}A#awxZ?_'nPVm|ȮW *X;wPzxZ/{o8wK o{uZElEw-U*g5K +WdGqrg첕mP[Y̖K}cYԕZA鍝SW/>OV[:z~^Y~įۗM*[>Vw}?hͥjuNwƧ_GƩtSϷ˧j_.6{{gWgݼk;٧ Paոxhm~ZVn?wrN[9/ Rm6۝O]U=(A0[?/xk;]-Uއud;iۭ njw}R+n,,<*bǟFx;'Ά˗3plE[+ZC3:ݶ߼U:R"hO87na.fxdt5p3NIL06mdZYOhMMxS]u\bţ0{̯-.˂: ,!тiI} ;`6Il=y`iG皌7`ee"ϳIs6hoݴL.q{&uPx,/cp*@>v:1`iv ΧDd 7Me)!Uqw)Isgyeϙw4~ϧZ_[|SU/]׫P-3hTA_Fr j qYg>%҆%49ѮgK7chq5YxDBdxff(Ȃgr8\GLATqA ز|O, A41G["a[@gNÛ "Exv`XMQ1@`IƢ~k2XT]XT\c]WzM.y?6XF6vcrJa;c)6uaf>boQLO) jсX3e#ܠ5LP"*"ju>a0X]=@y v4b!ʍf-2w^^=Qؓ+3XؐKEWl{3/ 1 @T|t~qQY #Rmh &lP-֪1mr[:#>8m"p}`~0ԜZ 5Uu%8hmf:/ *Ӣ: ķ`=/ܟrw65Ѡ`A2S" X^,,,c|6İ`+æPw8[R5h8WIOƵYɟ aXS,lG-{1[\m li@tjCo{߅!D(֢=9ڿ$:8ئn)㆞=n^5^mL-INRE2:d|c@MŻMu]NDV&Hu;t嶨aI.]d-YfIںuRPsb} H[ (5¹ \p5gS-hD]Z9C? m-I T6%yK:%05]iǁqeZN_>*o>:řUc h)ݦ#; Q;!lO^d.ȰzI L%',A5 Q;`o8,C`*5 ]%!Tjxr}]Yy-X9wvAnfQG_|x0ŽQQ>%rMTnPn6n ւ-Ҕ-ѱo!/C&Hב f:h&g[|Swd|({hb.H2RZ`ŀ~Dɰ?e龁jݗr)ho0!Cdy>΂HT&01 S Sp }|XeJ1)E(Dor`>l9=$A'e dz>Љj;fZ.J;_'jJn* /O|W.z$68W:;U:*` #_BBB*"II  Ys8 2w\"52)hہ1aH EƑ33?LSc^>3W{vcT':!}ݟ]2 M0r- y 8 lX QJ$dS**2e{p3GŗO.wMC:O,9UAQ-۷7BPaOc: ([,'T`"y`1~(6YacQP/!"گ ;M}U fAB1+n@:2ڠ=f"Vl$Rb.ir9Ԯ[$X1Ta" - x^\a/vώK@;ݐGVŃʀ+LPVv(DMCLdFce&)Ec--Yu)([BЋ5>^a{f?ɞ=PiMjCFzauyN9ݠIy2|I$@CS[ Et'1ޟiոIcAQu)Lv(mVpXJaӉJ_c̫axR7u"uÍQ '!>Y.9~a׉N #QESLt&%aAiue?sew!#/O^t~8D 9* 2R tx${"3^ <)ɡ1L58@/,PS@€+',VODj>Ɗ38h#:"¥UFve1 |k` p@PYyrBI-H<mkx#m@5JϬɴ:蘥!tM$`޳eɭɇZ,0[]kUKm{ܲE_tvz&=N-1"PrUE5YGƉ泀ʸ6CHȺ6Ӯ/tBlc.Աx?N*bUaflNFMMut0f. #^0(^*Rd4jj0' t>(>N#RtnTf&* UXy\a)SM`L)uTnKƿT9+/ʻlL/-PP?iuȉ yۋv;0&h+nLuDm:褎cuH &񰆑d,`[BrZ%ߣ=5`8DXK nA0+Eȿc1۲x|ZX'4Mx 6^:6i`wr=1 `"մP! :d==ک)T ag_a nQ⡁иzܴ O#"f Vݕi4[xM@!h@FhK><9dx11 EXx]U.f~ۘtcw,`2U\Q C>?bF8/>(pzi:mꈨ` uT$mnh8}hh85 A.U iIt3o`ɕܔWϞ ɏ(0iē,7h85̓Df|Ԋ#dxәXk݋{EJ?9fao "# /IR`RjiR2 rmsLOZ4I},N>Gz) ; )I.+y lVL"Y|~E-0gZ(r6+S/S,p8AdmCn`>2RF]YR Tie2Aa*߷$V rn\ n52 Gqz|>h:LsL"Ї6^ ;_iGM @lԘDH DQɉ7FWDwUYO_'6-ٳL9$bVPVQEɠѪ>9V%ʴ7sk [?Ǚ833ǟgML۷3[ױc5˅vpۋY7Me2M"ToFzfnj~sqԿW*5JFXl^t5Nv[C/k;[^w[{^Ww.ճG԰~ɻkzc.ne;/vꗏ\:AzKytQlaB7SnJ5RNZE`cn`Um:myx/~_ݦb$_d\A!;+/,nM7a +T A%v6aˀo_6h=Slc)[:COF,~,.tȬNJ4MJ i8m)ģ7@|JiPeqA "eI-.//e95߁[v,X ZR wk qO!;B/wDO}=ᐉ Y._qQz]Ug!-|]w@G>zuX|8!,N=!gBLcq2PJ$%N'bD,ȦeZdw9Mb )Sp H&̏~2_c=9MTu=%&w!d92-Hx@~:Usʸ[2e.b`xBRYm@hR'6?#"oa?XD?,eogŒMEBِ6,QFO?OL6(lqb ;op3L.SO9{+G\{V(޿xQ\._~MkZ=.w﯎kU*^ZÃ% 0Q9ؿ;pb7>sziZ`amu<*]QU`!AV`}xJP.:E](PMV=떡DׯNZw{]O49|wgGWmt^g!L:J r'dE1Zh.obLTO:5xƅ9_ѫN{v6*htQh UFo0u2apŪ(ƻ1PxW@F,p^XbG&` /a95Uz0S ˤy&:AR } $S6vGJ8̲qU^q ˿fr\6{ ֋ZXJKlb0_2T,jjHj>RLf]}PRMc@3tx1f:Fço!yĄhbI-e0mCfU1T:S'@' -B1,0#Ze! ?LhbeA5ԭ6D '(pL~jCcz.nk?eZɴiޚc5X3S7 fvu%S6h6Yj> nw_mgnj =tI;,ASCYҹk!@سAwj7D{=ˣ4v0i?g£fǘ j؝ahf9gPYNdċJbE*U:W8T ;AgKY86/wGJmO /15Gڨ HEcC*T?z/:^oduCB8 e}8pK~u[oހ#̓`ܡBk'W_EXwdDWo++j7ԭm74[BuCh?4xqsy}Í6n܇(<,=Cj/pm[. nm6l;ڎm7zЃW>y]h=8P2@YСN_i]CPv]C0De k9ә'=V/cϡ T$+ 7ƾWBz}-(-Da_v6lP Z)n?~s ]9{;3R9b9E5!cThXpPx%. cmca/r7\i|=}[s34]LsBYPKRTywnrcbDUzXŕUew,_~~2:QR,wT]܅/uG~;ʏ.j69EsM6Ήѹ FUO>C(H X}$F"n rZ^OK#

EDITORIAL

Vitamin E Supplements: Good in Theory, but Is the Theory Good?

E. Robert Greenberg, MD

Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:000-000.

Much of the U.S. public has a deep, and seemingly unshakable, faith in the health benefits of nutritional supplements (1). Use of these products has increased so rapidly in recent years that a third of all adults, and half of those older than 55 years of age, report taking at least 1 supplement daily (2). The shelves of pharmacies, grocery stores, and "nutrition centers" are well stocked with a dazzling variety of nutritional supplements, and for sound business reasons; supplements accounted for an estimated $18.8 billion in sales in the United States in 2003 alone (3). Many of these supplements are promoted to the public as "antioxidants," a fuzzily defined category that includes vitamins C and E, some carotenoids, and many other phytochemicals and plant extracts. Vitamin E is the most widely used of the individual products, and it is taken daily as a specific supplement (usually containing 400 IU of -tocopherol) by 22% of U.S. adults older than 55 years of age (2).

The touted benefit of antioxidants is prevention of the major chronic diseases that affect modern adults. Belief in the preventive value of antioxidants rests largely on 2 bodies of evidence. The first is epidemiologic observation, which has been interpreted as showing a decreased risk for disease among persons who consume relatively greater amounts of antioxidants in their diets or as supplements (4). The second is laboratory experiment, which has implicated oxidative chemical processes in the pathogenesis of such conditions including as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and chronic lung disease (5, 6). Clinical trials of antioxidant supplements have not shown a clear benefit from taking these agents. Nevertheless, they continue to be widely used, even by physicians (7, 8). Many doctors may share the view of a cardiology researcher who told me his reason for taking vitamin E: It won't hurt and might help, so why not take it?

But could antioxidant supplements actually be harmful? Two large clinical trials reported in the 1990s showed a statistically significant increase in risk for death among participants (mostly men with a history of heavy smoking) who received -carotene, an agent previously thought to be nearly free of serious toxicity (9, 10). More recently, the authors of a meta-analysis of clinical trials of antioxidant supplements and gastrointestinal cancer concluded that random assignment to supplements may have increased overall mortality (11). And now, in this issue, Miller and colleagues (12) report the results of a carefully conducted meta-analysis of clinical trials of vitamin E supplementation. They conclude that high doses of this agent increase the risk for death. Their meta-analysis involved data from 19 randomized trials, which recorded 12 504 deaths. Overall, being randomly assigned to receive vitamin E had no effect, either positive or negative. However, the data suggested a decreased risk for death associated with vitamin E in trials that used lower doses (<400 IU) and showed a statistically significant trend toward increased risk at doses of 400 IU and above.

The finding of possible harm with higher doses of vitamin E is surprising and has serious implications for the tens of millions of people who regularly use vitamin E supplements. Yet, how firm is the conclusion that the risk for death is increased? The wide range of vitamin E doses used in the various trials and the large number of study participants and deaths enabled detection of possible dose-related health effects that any single study could not identify and previous reports from meta-analyses have not addressed. Although Miller and colleagues excluded 17 trials from their meta-analysis, all were relatively small studies, and I doubt that inclusion of their data would have materially altered the principal conclusions of the report. However, I am not totally convinced that the authors have isolated the effects of vitamin E from those of other supplements, since 10 of the 19 trials included in the meta-analysis involved provision of vitamin E together with other nutritional supplements. Of particular concern, most of the evidence for an elevated mortality risk at high doses of vitamin E comes from 2 trials (13, 14) that administered vitamin E together with -carotene, a supplement previously associated with an increased risk for death. Miller and colleagues controlled for the possible effect of other supplements (apparently considered together, not as separate agents). Likewise, much of the data on low doses of vitamin E comes from trials (15, 16) of multiple vitamin and mineral supplements in Chinese populations whose nutritional status and causes of mortality differed profoundly from those of the North American and European participants in the other trials. Miller and colleagues acknowledge the difficulty of drawing broad inferences based on results from poorly nourished populations. Nevertheless, one cannot fully discount the possibility that the effects of specific supplements, nutritional status, or the conjoint effects of these factors underlie at least part of the dose--response relationship observed between vitamin E and mortality. Thus, while Miller and colleagues' report provides intriguing evidence suggesting that higher doses of vitamin E cause death, the case is not ironclad.

The lack of a benefit associated with vitamin E supplements in this meta-analysis accords with the published results of individual trials and previous meta-analyses. Despite my uncertainty about the finding of harm in this meta-analysis, I fully agree with the authors' conclusion that high-dose vitamin E supplementation is unjustified. Ample evidence indicates that taking high-dose vitamin E in later adult life (when most use of vitamins currently occurs) has no favorable health effects, and Miller and colleagues' meta-analysis raises the possibility of harm. Thus, our message to the public must be clear on this point: Vitamin E supplements won't help, and might harm, so save your money. However, many users of nutritional supplements report that they would continue to take the supplements even if they were shown to be ineffective in scientific clinical studies (1), so basing our advice simply on evidence of no benefit may not have much immediate effect.

The public's faith in vitamin E, and in antioxidants generally, reflects the strong belief of scientists and health professionals in the theory that exogenous antioxidants prevent chronic diseases. Ten years have passed since publication of the first large trial showing that vitamin E supplementation had no effect in preventing cancer and cardiovascular disease (9), and subsequent trials have repeatedly confirmed this result. The story is similar for other presumed antioxidants, such as -carotene and vitamin C. Yet the notion that consumption of antioxidants in diet and supplements can prevent disease appears to have drawn strength, rather than been weakened, by contrary results from clinical trials. Investigators have called attention to isolated findings of possible antioxidant benefits for subgroups of trial participants, or for secondary end points, when the overall results of a trial were clearly null. After -carotene, initially viewed as an extremely potent antioxidant, was shown to be harmful in clinical trials (9, 10), some scientists opined that the result represented a pro-oxidant property of the agent under certain conditions; thus, they made the seemingly perverse outcome fit the antioxidant theory. Meanwhile, research based on the antioxidant theory continues apace; a recent search of the 2004 National Institutes of Health funding database produced more than 700 hits for the term antioxidant. Most funded studies are basic research, but they include many clinical trials testing vitamin E supplements in tens of thousands of patients, with dosages ranging from 400 to 2000 IU/d, for prevention of a variety of conditions such as dementia, heart disease, and prostate cancer. These research projects have all passed a rigorous peer review, and I do not question the scientific merit of any one of them. But isn't it past the time for the scientific and public health communities to loosen their ties to a theory that lacks predictive ability for human disease?

Author and Article Information

From Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH 03755-1404.

Disclosure: The author led the research group that conducted one of the trials whose data are included in Miller and colleagues' meta-analysis, and provided the unpublished data to the authors of that report.

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.

Current Author Address: E. Robert Greenberg, MD, Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue North M4-B402, Seattle, WA 98109-1024; e-mail, E.Robert.Greenberg@dartmouth.edu.

References

1. Blendon RJ, DesRoches CM, Benson JM, Brodie M, Altman DE. Americans' views on the use and regulation of dietary supplements. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:805-10. [PMID: 11268222]

2. Millen AE, Dodd KW, Subar AF. Use of vitamin, mineral, nonvitamin, and nonmineral supplements in the United States: The 1987, 1992, and 2000 National Health Interview Survey results. J Am Diet Assoc. 2004;104:942-50. [PMID: 15175592]

3. Supplement Business Report. Nutrition Business Journal. San Diego, CA; 2003.

4. Stanner SA, Hughes J, Kelly CN, Buttriss J. A review of the epidemiological evidence for the 'antioxidant hypothesis'. Public Health Nutr. 2004;7:407-22. [PMID: 15153272]

5. Finkel T, Holbrook NJ. Oxidants, oxidative stress and the biology of ageing. Nature. 2000;408:239-47. [PMID: 11089981]

6. Klaunig JE, Kamendulis LM. The role of oxidative stress in carcinogenesis. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2004;44:239-67. [PMID: 14744246]

7. Muntwyler J, Hennekens CH, Manson JE, Buring JE, Gaziano JM. Vitamin supplement use in a low-risk population of US male physicians and subsequent cardiovascular mortality. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1472-6. [PMID: 12090883]

8. Frank E, Bendich A, Denniston M. Use of vitamin-mineral supplements by female physicians in the United States. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;72:969-75. [PMID: 11010939]

9. The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1029-35. [PMID: 8127329]

10. Omenn GS, Goodman GE, Thornquist MD, Balmes J, Cullen MR, Glass A, et al. Effects of a combination of beta carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1150-5. [PMID: 8602180]

11. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Simonetti RG, Gluud C. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2004;364:1219-28. [PMID: 15464182]

12. Miller ER 3rd, Pastor-Barriuso R, Dalal D, Riemersma RA, Appel LA, Guallar E. Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin e supplementation may increase all-cause mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:000-000.

13. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of antioxidant vitamin supplementation in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360:23-33. [PMID: 12114037]

14. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E and beta carotene for age-related cataract and vision loss: AREDS report no. 9. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1439-52. [PMID: 11594943]

15. Blot WJ, Li JY, Taylor PR, Guo W, Dawsey S, Wang GQ, et al. Nutrition intervention trials in Linxian, China: supplementation with specific vitamin/mineral combinations, cancer incidence, and disease-specific mortality in the general population. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1483-92. [PMID: 8360931]

16. Li JY, Taylor PR, Li B, Dawsey S, Wang GQ, Ershow AG, et al. Nutrition intervention trials in Linxian, China: multiple vitamin/mineral supplementation, cancer incidence, and disease-specific mortality among adults with esophageal dysplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1492-8. [PMID: 8360932]

}v8ߓs8o|cyu'M}~|hȒK>}d %YNәL ҼHk PϼA Tm"¯D3Ro\rʟǺ͒lW|f_Uu{zY{  uÝշ`6(ZqWR|+-ϳUvNI^ՊնSf3A&Ki-jRNvq`ۧɈiyaNHrJNLUFVvp>q@-qQRtUm5҂蹦6=WfXp,fpvy?tl+rK`{e"$KOOCnˈg{EdT8 Pr+=\Qf+ߟ eV`&+?_rY*{g%GuO_G98\~UHK<| A@mem Xm'JIШ;Ui,6#e](JA7 ACAlLT8\@R< `ǥ p`SGiDư?zEeJk(fBXcfXkO;Տ˴]G|1U!((K*u@m1}Km6k-v]֭O֝c:W>i\;y;9V5i;'bVM:oWnqup.^oZ޹;3_Z{vsXg;lc z-,LÈ#*+7qKz8qzG͓iY5Z>ղN]?]i[~X(V?9ofT wW{u#S^Irs(SjQ?QVguj/WgM˽]{J?A8Z}F);s\h;{ZqS>9Yk*睳ZS]Tsm=V;ٚw3zw5 ur+w577jGoF{FxzTo ~hWL}]޲+2H<3lm,6krlعjjMԭ$;ƙ/ڗ*']-x;w5Xʕw}hVjVk߭d?NVn?|N:v0e+}j*o+?.a%1[mvŌNhcf<7oe_<ӣ&΍q :c] {gS<  .):wm7Md[:7lq]P.A*q20 ?N'Q,Mհ|Jj@1pC;TIXwg%8OZM<#ϋ| }1EW77 Z~uz=)u~Ųn9F [e$7tvלuS(mXҬOhphF[4-8E ϴ#b&43EA<ÙZ}0b[4׭./_^ZbwkTsխ1%]fDZ79b$P~n5Pz |CSm}PD7 =>mt@4MSQW4~ [0lc;- {xijoLR~c=9K!* 7IR1: XOrM;]!%EXee,=fx؅pce`kke{i:&G#X=Vb#ۗaC/654"K5YI0 Z%/2VWxٸ3 5DS.=`GK# ܊j.puŃdv[L &O/uXHu<Zd@L[p"Lœ.|Ov }vdXwC/D׃Z0lZ+4y[Rp-A1'%eJD 46A/K@Ӱ73&"! d-uZV/]7ɠe T 563ֳlE*YڻjC( ri١؎ɦ"_$G2-bˌBD`IycY`3P<삡VFj-8!C]5@*Ak *a5NMWDS0"P=Mk"p ;`EV ¶6*:ZKEl@$T!PBA/9$I <7?:ܫ1fюZ4-ؓ+k3X8xؐKEWl{3/ 1N ^A6T|t~qQYahz~D 66kי㶸lEϑtHDt>4a jN-偒JGp 3Y{iQÏ_^a0PxL9c;hR )ls܉{H,6@V>LxbX0QS Dw4+Ad'ZŁsf0hg{#ҶE-.6 ,h Pt)OQNO =3"kў\_wlSH7oICψx7/h &ߋagDI9"21$͇&ݦ.\' "]Ѐsri_aڛ$.6,p$m]U: )(9>X$A- \ ZH8ߺ34D|Мc6j$\*4l|FD 4ݒnS' Q;%l>O^d.ȰzI UZL%',Au Q`o8,C`*5 ]-!Tjxr}摪&d(,'Y:ɀ`B&AabaaSn+L?&eTQL݇- Ҳ𯱗̰QR:QmTL֥@9=lv|ۨp8=$5%mL'Nj:X#_96ȗ--pR%:GC90 H L olv``LBq$ e* Ԙg@yA*mLU&N@tfLCS=\bo^(a)VeʨC%N^2lQ@} Q=NevjxEbhO [>aSĒS5۲}MeE{ӡ_`p^G:?QC!@( | ~-}=q0i H\6-Y!v{E%L Fu675Aڤl; 55sI#ϡv"Ŋ SimS mj5@P-l,èp|Y=?.T!%)歊7B y W`s0$T{(DMCLdFce &)Gc--Yu)(BЋ5>~~={ZԆ^#B2eTs8C A8e$HDJ.f&8|P7?fhf5USzN8`u Bۅ:6PCLа*"lLɸ /ΐܘ { E؀B1jOB[Thŀƒm]fj#i29 %;IJ ^ųkJ-I I\7aw,j}e⡁иܴ O#"f Vݕi4iXxM@!x@Fh K><9Odx11 EXx]U.f~ۘlcw-`2U\Q C>cF8/>(pzi:mꈨ` uT$nh<;h˜AFPuDx4Jy7O+nW+sT(@-UzAdעAG^J_C3\/!ǔM`ZmODfs"BT eC~4 PdTwi0( 1r̺!u>Dx0TN0mHmjrDeJXSZN9윜?*|S23> I&j-o 7oћL eHa ɕ {_e!pn>ǹ87w䓜)ajvn :pF`n{q5v,UfId?|cln̍[Os#6T9oSZGeP,.ogZ-wҫպÎwj]V}\}EۯZ޹;3_Z{vsXg;lc z-o,c3d\-_?g2XM.񔛲R͔7Ykeؘ`9'k%gv🇇%,Iߕ䏇_Ӷﶖ@&"hrM삮EKnZ *ؖT A%N6aˀo_h}S+ WNʏ- f'PpBߗ@dV7[&I 4 >4դKZI媬WWWٜo-gCla-)S};'pJЅ,/8v ?+}讪Έ֖ .&|;c`ʺNm>V@œ3N!c(Fv' 1U"FdS2m~lxU[ NG>H?R7R*EKϋe>ѓ_EU;^jR0 N؋z-cXm7'wCu؎-S2] * F'$5) Պ&bN }2"~__NJvvk,))/ʆaɈ4 x18(b.@acÜL=[`݅@$tvzƩ_;z:kBbj]lݽjY+Qm[}{}YU_=%(nh"DLڃ&JkuP{[W=hˏgv\Y+rN. ^A[t@"]0sd:FӢN.5)j.@ ]y w0^C|!۔0FwD~?\<.h $=P K*E0o( CEc)0smXN}Lȫ2miP$1C_ACA# njnnCRn?l\d&/\:oRꩅJ:X8Ɨ Z-z=Z-7ӬĤYKEW_4Tꀃ2P :3^ioF}C4[g_1%øcRK.eېejj7gm,PjE:wj KșbaYCO,S,4ZXtP u2s焁//*xI&yC $;j>.'(Kl@2`gi: ̍AYd<hwi <ڽM{:ﰏGDaǗ K,|1cC]@~ @P6tne=~$l]6^ (<~G7Lk,-1a/:vgX.Z>3Y3mG0.g ~U<a~nz!l @ݕR[B ~1ELw]G6k2x /A ν/pF!C:Zgۿ7ay;Y}+(9X]k"TQKt榲v@@{@=sAs;-˯ X=4C7?Zwfîhv'~p =xZÝ~ХE.D%y]y)3Duh3hCLF pVmE#Xy`Ѱc8{\`1>iHEoJhUO!8v彦%vU7(`zYOq?>y7tt mKO0~ȱ)"& BۂRF+qM7ohPGkC(x!L, FOt^MɤApW1Q!uf2gIR,EbKQ޹=T!aWVM"ޱJm$DZ\URwq 4E~T(?c6Z{Hq@58:'LG..V=y 1`QReH2`i{mca(#