-
1.
Effect of ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid-supplemented parenteral nutrition on inflammatory and immune function in postoperative patients with gastrointestinal malignancy: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials in China.
Zhao, Y, Wang, C
Medicine. 2018;97(16):e0472
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) can have a beneficial effect on inflammation and immune function. This meta-analysis looked at the effectiveness of omega-3 PUFAs on inflammatory and immune function in patients with stomach or colorectal cancers, following surgery. 16 Chinese randomised controlled trials with over 1000 patients carried out between 2000 and 2017 were included in the analysis. The researchers found that the numbers of immune cells in the omega-3 group were significantly higher than those in the control group. The levels of antibodies in people given omega-3 were significantly higher than those in the control group. Inflammatory markers in the omega-3 group were significantly lower. Those given omega-3 were 64% less likely to experience post-surgical infections. The result of this meta-analysis confirmed that supplementing gastrointestinal cancer patients with omega-3 improves post-surgery indicators of immune function, reduces inflammation, and reduces infections related to surgery. The authors recommend that omega-3 should be added to the nutrition formula given to gastrointestinal cancer patients following surgery.
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are no consensus regarding the efficacy of omega-3polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) on inflammatory and immune function in postoperative patients with gastrointestinal malignancy. METHODS The literatures published randomized control trials (RCT) were searched in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Weipu, and Wanfang Databases. The immune efficacy outcomes of ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid-supplemented parenteral nutrition in patients with gastrointestinal malignancy were compared. RESULTS Sixteen RCTs involving 1008 patients (506 in the omega-3 group, 502 in the control group) were enrolled into the analysis. The results of meta-analysis: the cell immunity: The proportions of CD3, CD4, CD4/CD8 in the omega-3 group were significantly higher than those in the control group (CD3: WMD = 4.48; 95% CI, 3.34-5.62; P < .00001; I = 0%; CD4: WMD = 5.55; 95% CI, 4.75-6.34; P < .00001; I = 0%; CD4/CD8: WMD = .28; 95% CI, 0.13-0.44; P = .0004; I = 81%). In the humoral immunity: The levels of IgA, IgM and IgG in the omega-3 group were significantly higher than those in the control group (IgA: WMD = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.25-0.37; P < .00001; I = 0%; IgM: WMD = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.06-1.81; P < .00001; I = 0%; IgG: WMD = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.80-1.58; P < .00001; I = 0%). The count of lymphocyte in the omega-3 group was significantly higher than that in the control group (WMD = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12-0.33; P < .0001; I = 40%). In the postoperative inflammatory cytokine: The levels of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and C-reactive protein in the omega-3 group were significantly lower than those in the control group (IL-6: WMD = -3.09; 95% CI, -3.91 to 2.27; P < .00001; I = 45%; TNF-α: WMD = -1.65; 95% CI, -2.05 to 1.25; P < .00001; I = 28%; CRP: WMD = -4.28; 95% CI, -5.26 to 3.30; P < .00001; I = 37%). The rate of postoperative infective complications in the omega-3 group was significantly lower than that in the control group (OR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20-0.66; P = .0008; I = 0%). CONCLUSION This meta-kanalysis confirmed that early intervention with Omega -3 fatty acid emulsion in gastrointestinal cancer can not only improve the postoperative indicators of immune function, reduce inflammatory reaction, and improve the postoperative curative effect but also improve the immune suppression induced by conventional PN or tumor. Therefore, postoperative patients with gastrointestinal cancer should add omega-3 unsaturated fatty acids in their PN formula. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to verify its efficacy.
-
2.
Dairy product consumption and risk of hip fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bian, S, Hu, J, Zhang, K, Wang, Y, Yu, M, Ma, J
BMC public health. 2018;18(1):165
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Dairy products contain calcium and Vitamin D, two elements that are known to support bone health. The consumption of dairy products therefore, may affect the risk of bone fracture, however the research remains inconclusive. This meta-analysis examined and quantified the potential association between dairy consumption and the risk of hip fracture. The final analysis included 10 cohort studies and 8 case-control studies. After pooling the data from these studies, the researchers concluded that: • Consumption of yoghurt and cheese was associated with a lower risk of hip fracture • Consumption of total dairy products and cream was not significantly associated with the risk of hip fracture • There was insufficient evidence to deduce an association between milk consumption and the risk of hip fracture. 200g of milk per day may be beneficial however the effects of higher volumes were unclear.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dairy product consumption may affect the risk of hip fracture, but previous studies have reported inconsistent findings. The primary aim of our meta-analysis was to examine and quantify the potential association of dairy product consumption with risk of hip fracture. METHODS We searched the databases of PubMed and EMBASE for relevant articles from their inception through April 17, 2017. The final analysis included 10 cohort studies and 8 case-control studies. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled risk. Subgroup and dose-response analyses were conducted to explore the relationships between the consumption of milk and the risk of hip fracture. RESULTS After pooling the data from the included studies, the summary relative risk (RR) for hip fracture for highest versus lowest consumption were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.74-1.12), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.66-0.86), 0.68 (95% CI: 0.61-0. 77), 1.02 (95% CI: 0.93-1.12) for milk, yogurt, cheese, and total dairy products in cohort studies, respectively. Higher milk consumption [Odds ratio (OR), 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55-0. 91] was associated with lower risk of hip fracture for highest versus lowest consumption in case-control studies. After quantifying the specific dose of milk, the summary RR/OR for an increased milk consumption of 200 g/day was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.94-1.07), and 0.89 (95%CI: 0.64-1.24) with significant heterogeneity for cohort and case-control studies, respectively; There was a nonlinear association between milk consumption and hip fracture risk in cohort, and case-control studies. CONCLUSIONS Our findings indicate that consumption of yogurt and cheese was associated with lower risk of hip fracture in cohort studies. However, the consumption of total dairy products and cream was not significantly associated with the risk of hip fracture. There was insufficient evidence to deduce the association between milk consumption and risk of hip fracture. A lower threshold of 200 g/day milk intake may have beneficial effects, whereas the effects of a higher threshold of milk intake are unclear.
-
3.
Effects of caffeine intake on muscle strength and power: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Grgic, J, Trexler, ET, Lazinica, B, Pedisic, Z
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 2018;15:11
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
The possible physical performance enhancing (or 'ergogenic) effects of caffeine have been extensively studied since the early 1900s. Recent focus has shifted to its impact on anaerobic physical performance outcomes such as muscular strength, endurance and jumping tasks that require power. Although it has been found to enhance muscle endurance, less is known about its impact on strength and power. This is the first meta-analysis on caffeine and muscle power, and includes 20 studies - ten on muscle strength outcomes and ten on muscle power. The analysis found that caffeine significantly improves muscle strength (SMD = 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03, 0.36; p = 0.023) but only for upper and not lower body strength. These results were found for men but more robust studies are needed to examine the impact for women (although the limited research suggests there may be a positive impact). This is in contrast to a previous meta-analysis that found no impact of caffeine on muscle strength (Polito, Souza, Casonatto & Farinatti, 2016). It was also found to significantly improve muscle power (SMD = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.34; p = 0.047). Although the pooled effect of caffeine on performance outcomes was small to medium, even small improvements can make a big difference competitively. Future research is needed to identify the best dosage and form of caffeine to maximise its performance enhancing effects. Additionally, more robust research is needed to reduce bias, and studies including women. It is important to recognise that individual physical performance changes as a result of caffeine are variable, so these findings must be applied on a case-by-case basis. * Polito MD, Souza DB, Casonatto J, Farinatti P. Acute effect of caffeine consumption on isotonic muscular strength and endurance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Sports. 2016;31:119–28.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Caffeine is commonly used as an ergogenic aid. Literature about the effects of caffeine ingestion on muscle strength and power is equivocal. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize results from individual studies on the effects of caffeine intake on muscle strength and power. METHODS A search through eight databases was performed to find studies on the effects of caffeine on: (i) maximal muscle strength measured using 1 repetition maximum tests; and (ii) muscle power assessed by tests of vertical jump. Meta-analyses of standardized mean differences (SMD) between placebo and caffeine trials from individual studies were conducted using the random effects model. RESULTS Ten studies on the strength outcome and ten studies on the power outcome met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analyses. Caffeine ingestion improved both strength (SMD = 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03, 0.36; p = 0.023) and power (SMD = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.34; p = 0.047). A subgroup analysis indicated that caffeine significantly improves upper (SMD = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.39; p = 0.026) but not lower body strength (SMD = 0.15; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.34; p = 0.147). CONCLUSION The meta-analyses showed significant ergogenic effects of caffeine ingestion on maximal muscle strength of upper body and muscle power. Future studies should more rigorously control the effectiveness of blinding. Due to the paucity of evidence, additional findings are needed in the female population and using different forms of caffeine, such as gum and gel.
-
4.
Nutritional labelling for healthier food or non-alcoholic drink purchasing and consumption.
Crockett, RA, King, SE, Marteau, TM, Prevost, AT, Bignardi, G, Roberts, NW, Stubbs, B, Hollands, GJ, Jebb, SA
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;2:CD009315
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Poor quality diets are a threat to health internationally and a challenge to health services. Implementing methods to change people's choices is difficult; even those who start making healthier choices often find it hard to maintain long-term. There is recognition that our environment has a powerful influence over our food choices and altering this may stimulate behavioural change. Nutritional labels provide information about the nutritional content of a food or drink. The type of information provided varies e.g. what nutrients they describe (e.g. macronutrients like fat or energy content) and the form also varies e.g. as a single number, as a proportion of a guideline for daily consumption, or with colours indicative of relative healthiness. Nutritional labelling has been rolled-out in many forms, across many countries but there is currently no consensus as to the best way of applying this information to products to stimulate healthier food choices. This review explored whether nutritional labels persuade consumers to buy alternative types of food and included 28 articles. Findings from these 28 articles suggest that nutritional labelling specially indicating energy content may cause people to opt to buy foods with a lower energy content in restaurants. This result (only based on 3 studies) suggests that nutritional labelling could be rolled-out on menus in restaurants, but high-quality research is required. Higher-quality research is also needed to explore the impact of nutritional labelling in shops and vending machines.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nutritional labelling is advocated as a means to promote healthier food purchasing and consumption, including lower energy intake. Internationally, many different nutritional labelling schemes have been introduced. There is no consensus on whether such labelling is effective in promoting healthier behaviour. OBJECTIVES To assess the impact of nutritional labelling for food and non-alcoholic drinks on purchasing and consumption of healthier items. Our secondary objective was to explore possible effect moderators of nutritional labelling on purchasing and consumption. SEARCH METHODS We searched 13 electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to 26 April 2017. We also handsearched references and citations and sought unpublished studies through websites and trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA Eligible studies: were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs/Q-RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies, or interrupted time series (ITS) studies; compared a labelled product (with information on nutrients or energy) with the same product without a nutritional label; assessed objectively measured purchasing or consumption of foods or non-alcoholic drinks in real-world or laboratory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted study data. We applied the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. We pooled studies that evaluated similar interventions and outcomes using a random-effects meta-analysis, and we synthesised data from other studies in a narrative summary. MAIN RESULTS We included 28 studies, comprising 17 RCTs, 5 Q-RCTs and 6 ITS studies. Most (21/28) took place in the USA, and 19 took place in university settings, 14 of which mainly involved university students or staff. Most (20/28) studies assessed the impact of labelling on menus or menu boards, or nutritional labelling placed on, or adjacent to, a range of foods or drinks from which participants could choose. Eight studies provided participants with only one labelled food or drink option (in which labelling was present on a container or packaging, adjacent to the food or on a display board) and measured the amount consumed. The most frequently assessed labelling type was energy (i.e. calorie) information (12/28).Eleven studies assessed the impact of nutritional labelling on purchasing food or drink options in real-world settings, including purchases from vending machines (one cluster-RCT), grocery stores (one ITS), or restaurants, cafeterias or coffee shops (three RCTs, one Q-RCT and five ITS). Findings on vending machines and grocery stores were not interpretable, and were rated as very low quality. A meta-analysis of the three RCTs, all of which assessed energy labelling on menus in restaurants, demonstrated a statistically significant reduction of 47 kcal in energy purchased (MD -46.72 kcal, 95% CI -78.35, -15.10, N = 1877). Assuming an average meal of 600 kcal, energy labelling on menus would reduce energy purchased per meal by 7.8% (95% CI 2.5% to 13.1%). The quality of the evidence for these three studies was rated as low, so our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and may change with further studies. Of the remaining six studies, only two (both ITS studies involving energy labels on menus or menus boards in a coffee shop or cafeteria) were at low risk of bias, and their results support the meta-analysis. The results of the other four studies which were conducted in a restaurant, cafeterias (2 studies) or a coffee shop, were not clearly reported and were at high risk of bias.Seventeen studies assessed the impact of nutritional labels on consumption in artificial settings or scenarios (henceforth referred to as laboratory studies or settings). Of these, eight (all RCTs) assessed the effect of labels on menus or placed on a range of food options. A meta-analysis of these studies did not conclusively demonstrate a reduction in energy consumed during a meal (MD -50 kcal, 95% CI -104.41, 3.88, N = 1705). We rated the quality of the evidence as low, so our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and may change with further studies.Six laboratory studies (four RCTs and two Q-RCTs) assessed the impact of labelling a single food or drink option (such as chocolate, pasta or soft drinks) on energy consumed during a snack or meal. A meta-analysis of these studies did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in energy (kcal) consumed (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.27, N = 732). However, the confidence intervals were wide, suggesting uncertainty in the true effect size. We rated the quality of the evidence as low, so our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and may change with further studies.There was no evidence that nutritional labelling had the unintended harm of increasing energy purchased or consumed. Indirect evidence came from five laboratory studies that involved mislabelling single nutrient content (i.e. placing low energy or low fat labels on high-energy foods) during a snack or meal. A meta-analysis of these studies did not demonstrate a statistically significant increase in energy (kcal) consumed (SMD 0.19, 95% CI -0.14to 0.51, N = 718). The effect was small and the confidence intervals wide, suggesting uncertainty in the true effect size. We rated the quality of the evidence from these studies as very low, providing very little confidence in the effect estimate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Findings from a small body of low-quality evidence suggest that nutritional labelling comprising energy information on menus may reduce energy purchased in restaurants. The evidence assessing the impact on consumption of energy information on menus or on a range of food options in laboratory settings suggests a similar effect to that observed for purchasing, although the evidence is less definite and also of low quality.Accordingly, and in the absence of observed harms, we tentatively suggest that nutritional labelling on menus in restaurants could be used as part of a wider set of measures to tackle obesity. Additional high-quality research in real-world settings is needed to enable more certain conclusions.Further high-quality research is also needed to address the dearth of evidence from grocery stores and vending machines and to assess potential moderators of the intervention effect, including socioeconomic status.
-
5.
Omega-3 fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Abdelhamid, AS, Brown, TJ, Brainard, JS, Biswas, P, Thorpe, GC, Moore, HJ, Deane, KH, AlAbdulghafoor, FK, Summerbell, CD, Worthington, HV, et al
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;7:CD003177
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Dietary intake or supplementation with omega-3 fats from fish and some plant foods such as flaxseed, are commonly believed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. This systematic review of 79 trials, including 112,000 individuals, aimed to assess the impacts of greater omega-3 intake versus lower or no omega-3 intake for heart and circulatory disease. The results of this systematic review showed that increasing EPA and DHA (omega-3 oils from fish) had little or no effect on all cause death or cardiovascular events and probably little or no effect on cardiovascular deaths (evidence mainly from supplement trials). EPA and DHA were found to reduce blood fat levels (triglycerides) and raise HDL (good cholesterol). Eating more ALA (omega-3 fats from walnuts for example) probably makes little or no difference to all-cause or cardiovascular death but probably slightly reduce cardiovascular events.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Researchers have suggested that omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from oily fish (long-chain omega-3 (LCn3), including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)), as well as from plants (alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)) benefit cardiovascular health. Guidelines recommend increasing omega-3-rich foods, and sometimes supplementation, but recent trials have not confirmed this. OBJECTIVES To assess effects of increased intake of fish- and plant-based omega-3 for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CVD) events, adiposity and lipids. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017, plus ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry to September 2016, with no language restrictions. We handsearched systematic review references and bibliographies and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that lasted at least 12 months and compared supplementation and/or advice to increase LCn3 or ALA intake versus usual or lower intake. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed validity. We performed separate random-effects meta-analysis for ALA and LCn3 interventions, and assessed dose-response relationships through meta-regression. MAIN RESULTS We included 79 RCTs (112,059 participants) in this review update and found that 25 were at low summary risk of bias. Trials were of 12 to 72 months' duration and included adults at varying cardiovascular risk, mainly in high-income countries. Most studies assessed LCn3 supplementation with capsules, but some used LCn3- or ALA-rich or enriched foods or dietary advice compared to placebo or usual diet.Meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses suggested little or no effect of increasing LCn3 on all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03, 92,653 participants; 8189 deaths in 39 trials, high-quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03, 67,772 participants; 4544 CVD deaths in 25 RCTs), cardiovascular events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04, 90,378 participants; 14,737 people experienced events in 38 trials, high-quality evidence), coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09, 73,491 participants; 1596 CHD deaths in 21 RCTs), stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, 89,358 participants; 1822 strokes in 28 trials) or arrhythmia (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05, 53,796 participants; 3788 people experienced arrhythmia in 28 RCTs). There was a suggestion that LCn3 reduced CHD events (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97, 84,301 participants; 5469 people experienced CHD events in 28 RCTs); however, this was not maintained in sensitivity analyses - LCn3 probably makes little or no difference to CHD event risk. All evidence was of moderate GRADE quality, except as noted.Increasing ALA intake probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20, 19,327 participants; 459 deaths, 5 RCTs),cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25, 18,619 participants; 219 cardiovascular deaths, 4 RCTs), and it may make little or no difference to CHD events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, 19,061 participants, 397 CHD events, 4 RCTs, low-quality evidence). However, increased ALA may slightly reduce risk of cardiovascular events (from 4.8% to 4.7%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07, 19,327 participants; 884 CVD events, 5 RCTs, low-quality evidence), and probably reduces risk of CHD mortality (1.1% to 1.0%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26, 18,353 participants; 193 CHD deaths, 3 RCTs), and arrhythmia (3.3% to 2.6%, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10, 4,837 participants; 141 events, 1 RCT). Effects on stroke are unclear.Sensitivity analysis retaining only trials at low summary risk of bias moved effect sizes towards the null (RR 1.0) for all LCn3 primary outcomes except arrhythmias, but for most ALA outcomes, effect sizes moved to suggest protection. LCn3 funnel plots suggested that adding in missing studies/results would move effect sizes towards null for most primary outcomes. There were no dose or duration effects in subgrouping or meta-regression.There was no evidence that increasing LCn3 or ALA altered serious adverse events, adiposity or lipids, although LCn3 slightly reduced triglycerides and increased HDL. ALA probably reduces HDL (high- or moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date. Moderate- and high-quality evidence suggests that increasing EPA and DHA has little or no effect on mortality or cardiovascular health (evidence mainly from supplement trials). Previous suggestions of benefits from EPA and DHA supplements appear to spring from trials with higher risk of bias. Low-quality evidence suggests ALA may slightly reduce CVD event risk, CHD mortality and arrhythmia.
-
6.
Pregnancy outcomes in women taking probiotics or prebiotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Jarde, A, Lewis-Mikhael, AM, Moayyedi, P, Stearns, JC, Collins, SM, Beyene, J, McDonald, SD
BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2018;18(1):14
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
It has been suggested that probiotics might help prevent premature birth, but two previous systematic reviews found possible increases in risk. The objective of this meta-analysis was to perform an up-to-date review of the risk of premature birth and other pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women taking probiotics or prebiotics. The authors pooled data from 27 studies, one using prebiotics and the rest probiotics. Taking probiotics or prebiotics during pregnancy did not change the risk of premature birth, or other pregnancy outcomes. The authors concluded that more studies are required to assess the safety and effects of taking probiotics and prebiotics during pregnancy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Probiotics are living microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit. It has been speculated that probiotics might help prevent preterm birth, but in two previous systematic reviews possible major increases in this risk have been suggested. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women taking probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics. METHODS We searched six electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science's Core collection and BIOSIS Preview) up to September 2016 and contacted authors for additional data. We included randomized controlled trials in which women with a singleton pregnancy received a probiotic, prebiotic or synbiotic intervention. Two independent reviewers extracted data using a piloted form and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We used random-effects meta-analyses to pool the results. RESULTS We identified 2574 publications, screened 1449 non-duplicate titles and abstracts and read 160 full text articles. The 49 publications that met our inclusion criteria represented 27 studies. No study used synbiotics, one used prebiotics and the rest used probiotics. Being randomized to take probiotics during pregnancy neither increased nor decreased the risk of preterm birth < 34 weeks (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.29-3.64, I2 0%, 1017 women in 5 studies), preterm birth < 37 weeks (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71-1.63, I2 0%, 2484 women in 11 studies), or most of our secondary outcomes, including gestational diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS We found no evidence that taking probiotics or prebiotics during pregnancy either increases or decreases the risk of preterm birth or other infant and maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION We prospectively published the protocol for this study in the PROSPERO database ( CRD42016048129 ).
-
7.
Dietary carbohydrate intake and mortality: a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis.
Seidelmann, SB, Claggett, B, Cheng, S, Henglin, M, Shah, A, Steffen, LM, Folsom, AR, Rimm, EB, Willett, WC, Solomon, SD
The Lancet. Public health. 2018;3(9):e419-e428
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Previous trials have shown that low carbohydrate diets are beneficial for short-term weight loss. However, the long-term impact of carbohydrate restriction on mortality is less clear, with research producing conflicting results. Additionally, previous studies have not addressed the source or quality of proteins and fats consumed in low-carbohydrate diets. This study aimed to find out whether there is an association between carbohydrate consumption and mortality. It also looked at whether animal-based or plant-based foods had any impact on the association. The researchers began by studying over 15,000 adults in the US, enrolled between 1987 and 1989. At the start of the study and again six years later, participants completed food frequency questionnaires. These were used to estimate the percentage of calories they derived from carbohydrate, fat and protein. The results showed a U-shape association between overall carbohydrate intake and life expectancy, with low (less than 40% of calories from carbohydrates) and high (more than 70%) intake of carbohydrates associated with a higher risk of mortality compared with moderate intake (50-55% of calories). The researchers estimated that the average life expectancy was 4 years shorter for those with low carbohydrate consumption, and 1 year shorter for those with high carbohydrate consumption, compared to those with a moderate carbohydrate intake. However, the authors point out that since diets were only recorded at the start of the trial and six years later, participants’ diets could have changed during the 25-year follow-up period. Next, the authors performed a meta-analysis of data from eight previous studies. This revealed similar trends, with participants whose overall diets were high and low in carbohydrates having a shorter life expectancy than those with moderate consumption. In further analyses examining the source of proteins and fats, animal-derived protein and fat sources, such as lamb, beef, pork and chicken, were associated with higher mortality, whereas plant-derived protein and fat intake, from sources such as vegetables, nuts, peanut butter and whole-grains, were associated with lower mortality. The authors suggest that, when restricting carbohydrate intake, replacement of carbohydrates with predominantly plant-based fats and proteins could be considered as a long-term approach to promote healthy ageing.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Low carbohydrate diets, which restrict carbohydrate in favour of increased protein or fat intake, or both, are a popular weight-loss strategy. However, the long-term effect of carbohydrate restriction on mortality is controversial and could depend on whether dietary carbohydrate is replaced by plant-based or animal-based fat and protein. We aimed to investigate the association between carbohydrate intake and mortality. METHODS We studied 15 428 adults aged 45-64 years, in four US communities, who completed a dietary questionnaire at enrolment in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study (between 1987 and 1989), and who did not report extreme caloric intake (<600 kcal or >4200 kcal per day for men and <500 kcal or >3600 kcal per day for women). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We investigated the association between the percentage of energy from carbohydrate intake and all-cause mortality, accounting for possible non-linear relationships in this cohort. We further examined this association, combining ARIC data with data for carbohydrate intake reported from seven multinational prospective studies in a meta-analysis. Finally, we assessed whether the substitution of animal or plant sources of fat and protein for carbohydrate affected mortality. FINDINGS During a median follow-up of 25 years there were 6283 deaths in the ARIC cohort, and there were 40 181 deaths across all cohort studies. In the ARIC cohort, after multivariable adjustment, there was a U-shaped association between the percentage of energy consumed from carbohydrate (mean 48·9%, SD 9·4) and mortality: a percentage of 50-55% energy from carbohydrate was associated with the lowest risk of mortality. In the meta-analysis of all cohorts (432 179 participants), both low carbohydrate consumption (<40%) and high carbohydrate consumption (>70%) conferred greater mortality risk than did moderate intake, which was consistent with a U-shaped association (pooled hazard ratio 1·20, 95% CI 1·09-1·32 for low carbohydrate consumption; 1·23, 1·11-1·36 for high carbohydrate consumption). However, results varied by the source of macronutrients: mortality increased when carbohydrates were exchanged for animal-derived fat or protein (1·18, 1·08-1·29) and mortality decreased when the substitutions were plant-based (0·82, 0·78-0·87). INTERPRETATION Both high and low percentages of carbohydrate diets were associated with increased mortality, with minimal risk observed at 50-55% carbohydrate intake. Low carbohydrate dietary patterns favouring animal-derived protein and fat sources, from sources such as lamb, beef, pork, and chicken, were associated with higher mortality, whereas those that favoured plant-derived protein and fat intake, from sources such as vegetables, nuts, peanut butter, and whole-grain breads, were associated with lower mortality, suggesting that the source of food notably modifies the association between carbohydrate intake and mortality. FUNDING National Institutes of Health.
-
8.
The effects of probiotics on total cholesterol: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Wang, L, Guo, MJ, Gao, Q, Yang, JF, Yang, L, Pang, XL, Jiang, XJ
Medicine. 2018;97(5):e9679
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Total cholesterol levels are commonly used as a marker of cardiovascular disease risk. The impact of probiotics on total cholesterol has been controversial. This meta-analysis of 32 randomised controlled trials including 1971 patients aimed to explore the effects of different probiotic strains on serum total cholesterol. The results of the meta-analysis showed that total cholesterol levels were significantly reduced in the probiotic group when compared with controls. Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium lactis, VSL#3 and Lactobacillus plantarum were found to have the most significant effects. In addition, a higher total cholesterol at the start of probiotic supplementation, a supplementation duration of longer than 8 weeks and taking the probiotics in capsule form as opposed to yoghurt, were found to have a greater impact. Nutrition practitioners wishing to support clients in the reduction of total cholesterol levels may want to consider the use of targeted probiotic therapy in their nutrition protocols.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Probiotics supplements provide a new nonpharmacological alternative to reduce cardiovascular risk factors. The impact of probiotics on the reduction of total cholesterol (TC) remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to showcase the most updated and comprehensive evaluation of the studies. METHODS Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched from electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database dating from January 2007 to January 2017. The curative effects of probiotics on the reduction of TC were assessed using mean difference (MD), as well as their 95% confidence interval (CI). RevMan software (version 5.3) was used to carry out this meta-analysis. RESULTS Thirty-two RCTs including 1971 patients met the inclusion criteria. Results of this analysis showed that compared with the control group serum TC was significantly reduced in probiotics group [MD = -13.27, 95% CI (-16.74 to 9.80), P < .05]. In addition, specific strains also significantly reduced serum TC, L acidophilus and B lactis [MD = -8.30, 95% CI (-10.44, -6.15), P < .05]; VSL#3 [MD = -11.04, 95% CI (-19.61, -2.48), P < .05]; L plantarum t ≤ 6 weeks: [MD = -1.56, 95% CI (-6.97, -3.86), P < .05] or t > 6 weeks: [MD = -22.18, 95% CI (-28.73, -15.63), P < .05]. Subgroup analysis indicated that the difference of baseline TC, probiotics forms and intervention duration might have a significant impact on the results. However, strains and doses of probiotics had no significant influence on curative effects. CONCLUSION Available evidence indicates that probiotics supplements can significantly reduce serum TC. Furthermore, higher baseline TC, longer intervention time, and probiotics in capsules form might contribute to a better curative effect.
-
9.
The influence of prebiotic or probiotic supplementation on antibody titers after influenza vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Yeh, TL, Shih, PC, Liu, SJ, Lin, CH, Liu, JM, Lei, WT, Lin, CY
Drug design, development and therapy. 2018;12:217-230
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Influenza vaccination is widely used although concerns regarding its efficacy exist. Both prebiotics and probiotics have been shown to produce protective effects against influenza infection and may enhance the immune response to the vaccination, especially in the elderly. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effect of pre- and probiotics on immune response to the influenza vaccination. According to the existing literature, participants who took prebiotics or probiotics were found to have higher hemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibodies, meaning a reduced likelihood of the virus attaching to the host’s red blood cells. Based on these results, the authors conclude both pre- or probiotic supplementation may enhance immune response in three influenza strains. While these results are promising, larger controlled trials are warranted to confirm the effectiveness and establish best clinical practice for supplementation.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Influenza infection is a common disease with a huge disease burden. Influenza vaccination has been widely used, but concerns regarding vaccine efficacy exist, especially in the elderly. Probiotics are live microorganisms with immunomodulatory effects and may enhance the immune responses to influenza vaccination. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the influence of prebiotics/probiotics/synbiotics supplementation on vaccine responses to influenza vaccination. Studies were systematically identified from electronic databases up to July 2017. Information regarding study population, influenza vaccination, components of supplements, and immune responses were extracted and analyzed. Twelve studies, investigating a total of 688 participants, were included in this review. RESULTS Patients with prebiotics/probiotics supplements were found to have higher influenza hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers after vaccination (for A/H1N1, 42.89 vs 35.76, mean difference =7.14, 95% CI =2.73, 11.55, P=0.002; for A/H3N2, 105.4 vs 88.25, mean difference =17.19, 95% CI =3.39, 30.99, P=0.01; for B strain, 34.87 vs 30.73, mean difference =4.17, 95% CI =0.37, 7.96, P=0.03). CONCLUSION Supplementation with prebiotics or probiotics may enhance the influenza hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers in all A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strains (20%, 19.5%, and 13.6% increases, respectively). Concomitant prebiotics or probiotics supplementation with influenza vaccination may hold great promise for improving vaccine efficacy. However, high heterogeneity was observed and further studies are warranted.
-
10.
Consumption of red and processed meat and breast cancer incidence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Farvid, MS, Stern, MC, Norat, T, Sasazuki, S, Vineis, P, Weijenberg, MP, Wolk, A, Wu, K, Stewart, BW, Cho, E
International journal of cancer. 2018;143(11):2787-2799
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Red meat and processed meat are hypothesised to be a dietary risk factor for several types of cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarise the current evidence regarding the association between red meat and processed meat consumption with breast cancer incidence. According to the existing literature, there is evidence that higher consumption of processed meat, but not red meat, is associated with higher risk of breast cancer. Based on these results, the authors conclude further research is required to better understand the effects of dietary risk factors in various molecular subtypes of breast cancer.
Abstract
Prior studies on red and processed meat consumption with breast cancer risk have generated inconsistent results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies to summarize the evidence regarding the relation of red meat and processed meat consumption with breast cancer incidence. We searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through January 2018 for prospective studies that reported the association between red meat and processed meat consumption with incident breast cancer. The multivariable-adjusted relative risk (RR) was combined comparing the highest with the lowest category of red meat (unprocessed) and processed meat consumption using a random-effect meta-analysis. We identified 13 cohort, 3 nested case-control and two clinical trial studies. Comparing the highest to the lowest category, red meat (unprocessed) consumption was associated with a 6% higher breast cancer risk (pooled RR,1.06; 95% confidence intervals (95%CI):0.99-1.14; I2 = 56.3%), and processed meat consumption was associated with a 9% higher breast cancer risk (pooled RR, 1.09; 95%CI, 1.03-1.16; I2 = 44.4%). In addition, we identified two nested case-control studies evaluating the association between red meat and breast cancer stratified by N-acetyltransferase 2 acetylator genotype. We did not observe any association among those with either fast (per 25 g/day pooled odds ratio (OR), 1.18; 95%CI, 0.93-1.50) or slow N-acetyltransferase 2 acetylators (per 25 g/day pooled OR, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.91-1.08). In the prospective observational studies, high processed meat consumption was associated with increased breast cancer risk.