Whole fresh fruit intake and risk of incident diabetes in different glycemic stages: a nationwide prospective cohort investigation.

PURPOSE: Fruit intake is beneficial to several chronic diseases, but controversial in diabetes. We aimed to investigate prospectively the associations of whole fresh fruit intake with risk of incident type 2 diabetes (T2D) in subjects with different glucose regulation capacities. METHODS: The present study included 79,922 non-diabetic participants aged ≥ 40 years from an ongoing nationwide prospective cohort in China. Baseline fruit intake information was collected by a validated food frequency questionnaire. Plasma HbA1c, fasting and 2 h post-loading glucose levels were measured at both baseline and follow-up examinations. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for incident diabetes among participants with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) and prediabetes, after adjusted for multiple confounders. Restricted cubic spline analysis was applied for dose-response relation. RESULTS: During a median 3.8-year follow-up, 5886 (7.36%) participants developed diabetes. Overall, we identified a linear and dose-dependent inverse association between dietary whole fresh fruit intake and risk of incident T2D. Each 100 g/d higher fruit intake was associated with 2.8% lower risk of diabetes (HR 0.972, 95%CI [0.949-0.996], P = 0.0217), majorly benefiting NGT subjects with 15.2% lower risk (HR 0.848, 95%CI [0.766-0.940], P = 0.0017), while not significant in prediabetes (HR 0.981, 95%CI 0.957-4.005, P = 0.1268). Similarly, the inverse association was present in normoglycemia individuals with a 48.6% lower risk of diabetes when consuming fruits > 7 times/week comparing to those < 1 time/week (HR 0.514, 95% CI [0.368-0.948]), but not in prediabetes (HR 0.883, 95% CI [0.762-1.023]). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that higher frequency and amount of fresh fruit intake may protect against incident T2D, especially in NGT, but not in prediabetes, highlighting the dietary recommendation of higher fresh fruit consumption to prevent T2D in normoglycemia population.

The feasibility and safety of disposable endoscope vs. conventional endoscope for upper gastrointestinal tract examination: a multicenter, randomized, parallel, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: A disposable upper gastrointestinal endoscope can effectively decrease infectious outbreaks associated with endoscope reuse. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a disposable endoscope for upper gastrointestinal examination. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized trial, 144 upper endoscopic procedures were allocated to either the disposable endoscope group or the conventional endoscope group. The primary outcomes were rates of excellent and good image qualities and maneuverability satisfaction. The second outcome included procedure duration, endoscopic diagnosis, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 144 subjects were enrolled in the present analysis and prospectively randomized to 2 study groups. Finally, 70 and 69 subjects were enrolled in the novel disposable endoscope group and the conventional endoscope group, respectively, due to the schedule cancellation of 5 subjects. The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. The excellent and good image quality rates and maneuverability satisfaction of the novel disposable endoscope were not inferior to the conventional endoscope (p = 0.99 and p = 0.99, respectively). Moreover, no significant between-group difference was observed in the endoscopic results and adverse events (p = 0.30 and p = 1, respectively). However, the procedure duration in the novel disposable endoscope was longer compared with the conventional endoscope (8.40 ± 4.28 min vs. 5.12 ± 2.65 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The novel disposable endoscope was as safe, effective, and maneuverable as a conventional endoscope. However, the novel disposable endoscope was associated with a longer procedure duration.