Health benefits of moderate wine consumption have been studied during the past decades, first in observational studies and more recently, in experimental settings and randomized controlled studies. Suggested biological pathways include antioxidant, lipid regulating, and anti-inflammatory effects. Both the alcoholic and polyphenolic components of wine are believed to contribute to these beneficial effects.
Although several of these studies demonstrated protective associations between moderate drinking and cardiovascular disease, atherosclerosis, hypertension, certain types of cancer, type 2 diabetes, neurological disorders, and the metabolic syndrome, no conclusive recommendations exist regarding moderate wine consumption. Yet, it is suggested that the physician and patient should discuss alcohol use. In the CASCADE (CArdiovaSCulAr Diabetes & Ethanol) trial, 224 abstainers with type 2 diabetes were randomized to consume red wine, white wine or mineral water for two years.
Here, we summarize our previous findings, offer new evidence concerning the differential effects of wine consumption among men and women, and further suggest that initiating moderate alcohol consumption among well-controlled persons with type 2 diabetes is apparently safe, in regard to changes in heart rate variability and carotid plaque formation
AIMS: Alcohol intake has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer. However, the dose-response analysis of different alcoholic beverages (spirits, wine and beer) is not clear. Our meta-analysis aims to provide a dose-response estimation between different alcohols and breast cancer risk.
METHODS: Search of PubMed and Web of Science and manual searches were conducted up to 1 December 2018, and summary relative risks (RRs) and attributable risk percentage (ARP) for alcohol intake on the development of breast cancer were calculated. Dose-response meta-analysis modeled relationships between drinking type and breast cancer risk. Sources of heterogeneity were explored, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of findings.
RESULTS: In total, 22 cohort studies and 45,350 breast cancer cases were included. Current drinkers for ER+ had an increased risk compared with never drinkers. In dose-response analysis, there was a statistically significant linear trend with breast cancer risk increasing gradually by total alcohol and wine dose: when adding 10 g per day, the risk increased by 10.5% (RR = 1.10, 95%CI = 1.08-1.13) in total alcohol and 8.9% (RR = 1.08, 95%CI = 1.04-1.14) in wine. For postmenopausal women, the risk increases by 11.1% (RR = 1.11, 95%CI = 1.09-1.13) with every 10 g of total alcohol increase. Furthermore, the breast cancer alcohol-attributed percentage is higher in Europe than in North America and Asia.
CONCLUSIONS: The effect of drinking on the incidence of breast cancer is mainly manifested in ER+ breast cancer. Quantitative analysis showed total drinking had a significant risk for breast cancer, especially for postmenopausal women. However, for different alcohols, just wine intake has the similar results.
Funding of research by industry in general can lead to sponsorship bias. The aim of the current study was to conduct an initial exploration of the impact of sponsorship bias in observational alcohol research by focusing on a broad spectrum of health outcomes.
The purpose was to determine whether the outcome depended on funding source. We focused on moderate alcohol consumption and used meta-analyses that are the basis of several international alcohol guidelines. These meta-analyses included observational studies that investigated the association of alcohol consumption with 14 different health outcomes, including all-cause mortality, several cardiovascular diseases and cancers, dementia, and type 2 diabetes.
Subgroup analyses and metaregressions were conducted to investigate the association between moderate alcohol consumption and the risk of different health outcomes, comparing findings of studies funded by the alcohol industry, ones not funded by the alcohol industry, and studies with an unknown funding source. A total of 386 observational studies were included.
Twenty-one studies (5.4%) were funded by the alcohol industry, 309 studies (80.1%) were not funded by the alcohol industry, and for the remaining 56 studies (14.5%) the funding source was unknown. Subgroup analyses and metaregressions did not show an effect of funding source on the association between moderate alcohol intake and different health outcomes.
In conclusion, only a small proportion of observational studies in meta-analyses, referred to by several international alcohol guidelines, are funded by the alcohol industry. Based on this selection of observational studies the association between moderate alcohol consumption and different health outcomes does not seem to be related to funding source.