18 May 2018 In General Health

BACKGROUND: Low-risk limits recommended for alcohol consumption vary substantially across different national guidelines. To define thresholds associated with lowest risk for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease, we studied individual-participant data from 599 912 current drinkers without previous cardiovascular disease.

METHODS: We did a combined analysis of individual-participant data from three large-scale data sources in 19 high-income countries (the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration, EPIC-CVD, and the UK Biobank). We characterised dose-response associations and calculated hazard ratios (HRs) per 100 g per week of alcohol (12.5 units per week) across 83 prospective studies, adjusting at least for study or centre, age, sex, smoking, and diabetes. To be eligible for the analysis, participants had to have information recorded about their alcohol consumption amount and status (ie, non-drinker vs current drinker), plus age, sex, history of diabetes and smoking status, at least 1 year of follow-up after baseline, and no baseline history of cardiovascular disease. The main analyses focused on current drinkers, whose baseline alcohol consumption was categorised into eight predefined groups according to the amount in grams consumed per week. We assessed alcohol consumption in relation to all-cause mortality, total cardiovascular disease, and several cardiovascular disease subtypes. We corrected HRs for estimated long-term variability in alcohol consumption using 152 640 serial alcohol assessments obtained some years apart (median interval 5.6 years [5th-95th percentile 1.04-13.5]) from 71 011 participants from 37 studies.

FINDINGS: In the 599 912 current drinkers included in the analysis, we recorded 40 310 deaths and 39 018 incident cardiovascular disease events during 5.4 million person-years of follow-up. For all-cause mortality, we recorded a positive and curvilinear association with the level of alcohol consumption, with the minimum mortality risk around or below 100 g per week. Alcohol consumption was roughly linearly associated with a higher risk of stroke (HR per 100 g per week higher consumption 1.14, 95% CI, 1.10-1.17), coronary disease excluding myocardial infarction (1.06, 1.00-1.11), heart failure (1.09, 1.03-1.15), fatal hypertensive disease (1.24, 1.15-1.33); and fatal aortic aneurysm (1.15, 1.03-1.28). By contrast, increased alcohol consumption was log-linearly associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction (HR 0.94, 0.91-0.97). In comparison to those who reported drinking >0-100-200-350 g per week had lower life expectancy at age 40 years of approximately 6 months, 1-2 years, or 4-5 years, respectively.

INTERPRETATION: In current drinkers of alcohol in high-income countries, the threshold for lowest risk of all-cause mortality was about 100 g/week. For cardiovascular disease subtypes other than myocardial infarction, there were no clear risk thresholds below which lower alcohol consumption stopped being associated with lower disease risk. These data support limits for alcohol consumption that are lower than those recommended in most current guidelines.

FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, European Union Framework 7, and European Research Council.

18 May 2018 In Cancer

Importance: Inflammation is important in colorectal cancer development. Diet modulates inflammation and may thus be a crucial modifiable factor in colorectal cancer prevention.

Objective: To examine whether proinflammatory diets are associated with increased colorectal cancer risk by using an empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) score based on a weighted sum of 18 food groups that characterizes dietary inflammatory potential based on circulating levels of inflammation biomarkers.

Design, Settings, and Participants: Cohort study of 46804 men (Health Professionals Follow-up Study: 1986-2012) and 74246 women (Nurses' Health Study: 1984-2012) followed for 26 years to examine associations between EDIP scores and colorectal cancer risk using Cox regression. We also examined associations in categories of alcohol intake and body weight. Data analysis began January 17, 2017, and was completed August 9, 2017.

Exposures: EDIP scores calculated from food frequency questionnaires administered every 4 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident colorectal cancer.

Results: We documented 2699 incident colorectal cancer cases over 2571831 person-years of follow-up. Compared with participants in the lowest EDIP quintile (Q) who had a colorectal cancer incidence rate (per 100000 person-years) of 113 (men) and 80 (women), those in the highest Q had an incidence rate of 151 (men) and 92 (women), leading to an unadjusted rate difference of 38 and 12 more colorectal cancer cases, respectively, among those consuming highly proinflammatory diets. Comparing participants in the highest vs lowest EDIP Qs in multivariable-adjusted analyses, higher EDIP scores were associated with 44% (men: hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% CI, 1.19-1.74; P < .001 for trend), 22% (women: HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.45; P = .007 for trend), and 32% (men and women: pooled HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < .001 for trend) higher risk of developing colorectal cancer. In both men and women, associations were observed in all anatomic subsites except for the rectum in women. In subgroups (P </= .02 for all interactions), associations differed by alcohol intake level, with stronger associations among men (Q5 vs Q1 HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.05-2.49; P = .002 for trend) and women (Q5 vs Q1 HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.97-1.81; P = .03 for trend) not consuming alcohol; and by body weight, with stronger associations among overweight/obese men (Q5 vs Q1 HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.12-1.94; P = .008 for trend) and lean women (Q5 vs Q1 HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.99-1.74; P = .01 for trend).

Conclusions and Relevance: Findings suggest that inflammation is a potential mechanism linking dietary patterns and colorectal cancer development. Interventions to reduce the adverse role of proinflammatory diets may be more effective among overweight/obese men and lean women or men and women who do not consume alcohol.

18 May 2018 In Cancer

Objective: To investigate the impact of moderate wine consumption on the risk of prostate cancer (PCa). We focused on the differential effect of moderate consumption of red versus white wine.

Design: This study was a meta-analysis that includes data from case-control and cohort studies.

Materials and methods: A systematic search of Web of Science, Medline/PubMed, and Cochrane library was performed on December 1, 2017. Studies were deemed eligible if they assessed the risk of PCa due to red, white, or any wine using multivariable logistic regression analysis. We performed a formal meta-analysis for the risk of PCa according to moderate wine and wine type consumption (white or red). Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Cochrane's Q test and I(2) statistics. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's regression test.

Results: A total of 930 abstracts and titles were initially identified. After removal of duplicates, reviews, and conference abstracts, 83 full-text original articles were screened. Seventeen studies (611,169 subjects) were included for final evaluation and fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In the case of moderate wine consumption: the pooled risk ratio (RR) for the risk of PCa was 0.98 (95% CI 0.92-1.05, p=0.57) in the multivariable analysis. Moderate white wine consumption increased the risk of PCa with a pooled RR of 1.26 (95% CI 1.10-1.43, p=0.001) in the multi-variable analysis. Meanwhile, moderate red wine consumption had a protective role reducing the risk by 12% (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-0.999, p=0.047) in the multivariable analysis that comprised 222,447 subjects.

Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, moderate wine consumption did not impact the risk of PCa. Interestingly, regarding the type of wine, moderate consumption of white wine increased the risk of PCa, whereas moderate consumption of red wine had a protective effect. Further analyses are needed to assess the differential molecular effect of white and red wine conferring their impact on PCa risk.

03 May 2018 In Pregnant Women
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of low-to-moderate levels of maternal alcohol consumption in pregnancy on pregnancy and longer-term offspring outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Psychinfo from inception to 11 July 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective observational studies, negative control and quasiexperimental studies of pregnant women estimating effects of light drinking in pregnancy (=32 g/week) versus abstaining. Pregnancy outcomes such as birth weight and features of fetal alcohol syndrome were examined. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer extracted data and another checked extracted data. Random effects meta-analyses were performed where applicable, and a narrative summary of findings was carried out otherwise. MAIN RESULTS: 24 cohort and two quasiexperimental studies were included. With the exception of birth size and gestational age, there was insufficient data to meta-analyse or make robust conclusions. Odds of small for gestational age (SGA) and preterm birth were higher for babies whose mothers consumed up to 32 g/week versus none, but estimates for preterm birth were also compatible with no association: summary OR 1.08, 95% CI (1.02 to 1.14), I2 0%, (seven studies, all estimates were adjusted) OR 1.10, 95% CI (0.95 to 1.28), I2 60%, (nine studies, includes one unadjusted estimates), respectively. The earliest time points of exposure were used in the analysis. CONCLUSION: Evidence of the effects of drinking =32 g/week in pregnancy is sparse. As there was some evidence that even light prenatal alcohol consumption is associated with being SGA and preterm delivery, guidance could advise abstention as a precautionary principle but should explain the paucity of evidence
Page 9 of 209

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.

Disclaimer

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.