25 August 2020 In Diabetes

BACKGROUND: Previous cohort studies have shown that moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, whether these associations differ according to the characteristics of patients with T2D remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore and summarize the evidence on the strength of the association between alcohol consumption and the subsequent risk of T2D by using a dose-response meta-analytic approach.

DESIGN: We identified potential studies by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to 24 March 2015. Prospective observational studies that evaluated the relation between alcohol consumption and the risk of T2D and reported its effect estimates with 95% CIs were included.

RESULTS: Analyses were based on 706,716 individuals (275,711 men and 431,005 women) from 26 studies with 31,621 T2D cases. We detected a nonlinear relation between alcohol consumption and the risk of T2D, which was identified in all cohorts (P-trend < 0.001, P-nonlinearity < 0.001), in men (P-trend < 0.001, P-nonlinearity < 0.001), and in women (P-trend < 0.001, P-nonlinearity < 0.001). Compared with the minimal category of alcohol consumption, light (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.73, 0.95; P = 0.005) and moderate (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.82; P < 0.001) alcohol consumption was associated with a lower risk of T2D. However, heavy alcohol consumption had little or no effect on subsequent T2D risk. Furthermore, the summary RR ratio (RRR; male to female) of the comparison between moderate alcohol consumption and the minimal alcohol categories for T2D was significantly higher, and the pooled RRR (current smoker to never smoker) of light alcohol consumption was significantly reduced.

CONCLUSIONS: Light and moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a lower risk of T2D, whereas heavy alcohol consumption was not related to the risk of T2D

25 August 2020 In Diabetes

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Previous meta-analyses identified an inverse association of total alcohol consumption with the risk of type 2 diabetes. The current study further explored the relationship between specific types of alcoholic beverage and the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from January 1966 to February 2016 was carried out for prospective cohort studies that assessed the effects of specific types of alcoholic beverage on the risk of type 2 diabetes. The pooled relative risks with 95% confidence interval were calculated using random- or fixed-effect models when appropriate.

RESULTS: A total of 13 prospective studies were included in this meta-analysis, with 397,296 study participants and 20,641 cases of type 2 diabetes. Relative to no or rare alcohol consumption, wine consumption was associated with a significant reduction of the risk of type 2 diabetes, with the pooled relative risks of 0.85, whereas beer or spirits consumption led to a slight trend of decreasing risk of type 2 diabetes (relative risk 0.96, 0.95, respectively). Further dose-response analysis showed a U-shaped relationship between all three alcohol types and type 2 diabetes. Additionally, the peak risk reduction emerged at 20-30 g/day for wine and beer, and at 7-15 g/day for spirits, with a decrease of 20, 9 and 5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Compared with beer or spirits, wine was associated with a more significant decreased risk of type 2 diabetes. The present study showed that wine might be more helpful for protection against type 2 diabetes than beer or spirits

25 August 2020 In Cancer

BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption has been found to increase the risk of breast cancer in observation studies, yet it remains unknown if alcohol is related to other hormone-dependent cancers such as ovarian cancer. No Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have been performed to assess a potential causal relationship between alcohol use and risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

METHODS: We aim to determine if alcohol consumption is causally associated with the risk of female hormone-dependent cancers, by using summary level genetic data from the hitherto largest genome-wide association studies (GWAS) conducted on alcohol consumption (N=~1.5 million individuals), breast (Ncase=122,977) and ovarian cancer (Ncase=25,509). We examined three different alcohol intake exposures, drinks per week (drinks/week), alcohol use disorder (AUD) and age-adjusted alcohol use disorder identification test (AUDIT-C), to reflect the general and harmful drinking behavior. We constructed updated and stronger instruments using ninety-nine drinks/week-related SNPs, nine AUD-related SNPs and thirteen AUDIT-C-related SNPs and estimated the causal relationship applying several two-sample MR methods.

RESULTS: We did not find any evidence to support for a causal association between alcohol consumption and risk of breast cancer [ORdrinks/week=1.01 (0.85-1.21), P=0.89; ORAUD=1.04 (95%CI: 0.89-1.21), P=0.62; ORAUDIT-C=1.07 (0.90-1.28), P=0.44]; neither with its subtypes including ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer, using any of the three alcohol-related exposures. For ovarian cancer, however, we identified a reduced risk with alcohol consumption, where a borderline significance was found for AUDIT-C but not for drinks/week or AUC [ORdrinks/week=0.83 (0.63-1.10), P=0.19; ORAUD=0.92 (0.83-1.01), P=0.08; ORAUDIT-C=0.83 (0.71-0.97), P=0.02]. The effect attenuated to null excluding SNPs associated with potential confounders [ORdrinks/week=0.81(0.53-1.21), P=0.31; ORAUD=0.96(0.78-1.18), P=0.68; ORAUDIT-C=0.89(0.68-1.16), P=0.38].

CONCLUSION: We do not find any compelling evidence in support for a causal relationship between genetically predicted alcohol consumption and risk of breast or ovarian cancer, consistent across three different alcohol-related exposures. Future MR studies validating our findings are needed, when large-scale alcohol consumption GWAS results become available.

25 August 2020 In Cancer

BACKGROUND: Different analytical approaches can influence the associations estimated in observational studies. We assessed the variability of effect estimates reported within and across observational studies evaluating the impact of alcohol on breast cancer.

METHODS: We abstracted largest harmful, largest protective and smallest (closest to the null value of 1.0) relative risk estimates in studies included in a recent alcohol-breast cancer meta-analysis, and recorded how they differed based on five model specification characteristics, including exposure definition, exposure contrast levels, study populations, adjustment covariates and/or model approaches. For each study, we approximated vibration of effects by dividing the largest by the smallest effect estimate [i.e. ratio of odds ratio (ROR)].

RESULTS: Among 97 eligible studies, 85 (87.6%) reported both harmful and protective relative effect estimates for an alcohol-breast cancer relationship, which ranged from 1.1 to 17.9 and 0.0 to 1.0, respectively. The RORs comparing the largest and smallest estimates in value ranged from 1.0 to 106.2, with a median of 3.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 2.0-5.2]. One-third (35, 36.1%) of the RORs were based on extreme effect estimates with at least three different model specification characteristics; the vast majority (87, 89.7%) had different exposure definitions or contrast levels. Similar vibrations of effect were observed when only extreme estimates with differences based on study populations and/or adjustment covariates were compared.

CONCLUSIONS: Most observational studies evaluating the impact of alcohol on breast cancer report relative effect estimates for the same associations that diverge by >2-fold. Therefore, observational studies should estimate the vibration of effects to provide insight regarding the stability of findings.

Page 5 of 531

Contact us

We love your feedback. Get in touch with us.

  • Tel: +32 (0)2 230 99 70
  • Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


The authors have taken reasonable care in ensuring the accuracy of the information herein at the time of publication and are not responsible for any errors or omissions. Read more on our disclaimer and Privacy Policy.