Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters

Database
Language
Affiliation country
Publication year range
1.
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis ; 31(9): 2526-2538, 2021 08 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34112583

ABSTRACT

AIMS: To evaluate the long-term consequences of coffee drinking in patients with type 2 diabetes. DATA SYNTHESIS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences were searched to November 2020 for prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of coffee drinking with risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. Two reviewers extracted data and rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE approach. Random-effects models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Dose-response associations were modeled by a one-stage mixed-effects meta-analysis. Ten prospective cohort studies with 82,270 cases were included. Compared to those with no coffee consumption, the HRs for consumption of 4 cups/d were 0.79 (95%CI: 0.72, 0.87; n = 10 studies) for all-cause mortality, 0.60 (95%CI: 0.46, 0.79; n = 4) for CVD mortality, 0.68 (95%CI: 0.51, 0.91; n = 3) for coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality, 0.72 (95%CI: 0.54, 0.98; n = 2) for CHD, and 0.77 (95%CI: 0.61, 0.98; n = 2) for total CVD events. There was no significant association for cancer mortality and stroke. There was an inverse monotonic association between coffee drinking and all-cause and CVD mortality, and inverse linear association for CHD and total CVD events. The certainty of evidence was graded moderate for all-cause mortality, and low or very low for other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Drinking coffee may be inversely associated with the risk of mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, more research is needed considering type of coffee, sugar and cream added to coffee, and history of CVD to present more confident results. REGISTRY AND REGISTRY NUMBER: The protocol of this systematic review was registered at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/8uaf3, registered form: osf.io/xur76, registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/8UAF3).


Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Coffee , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/mortality , Recommended Dietary Allowances , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Cause of Death , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Female , Heart Disease Risk Factors , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Protective Factors , Risk Assessment , Time Factors , Young Adult
2.
Adv Nutr ; 12(1): 128-140, 2021 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32790827

ABSTRACT

Recent data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) suggest that DHA may have stronger anti-inflammatory effects than EPA. This body of evidence has not yet been quantitatively reviewed. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of DHA and EPA on several markers of systemic inflammation by pairwise and network meta-analyses of RCTs. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched through to September 2019. We included RCTs of ≥7 d on adults regardless of health status that directly compared the effects of DHA with EPA and RCTs of indirect comparisons, in which the effects of DHA or EPA were compared individually to a control fatty acid. Differences in circulating concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and adiponectin were the primary outcome measures. Data were pooled by pairwise and network meta-analysis and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I2 statistic) in the pairwise meta-analysis. Inconsistency and transitivity were evaluated in the network meta-analysis. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Eligibility criteria were met by 5 RCTs (N = 411) for the pairwise meta-analysis and 20 RCTs (N = 1231) for the network meta-analysis. In the pairwise meta-analysis, DHA and EPA had similar effects on plasma CRP [MDDHA versus EPA = 0.14 mg/L (95% CI: -0.57, 0.85); I2 = 61%], IL-6 [MDDHA versus EPA = 0.10 pg/mL (-0.15, 0.34); I2 = 40%], and TNF-α [MDDHA versus EPA = -0.10 pg/mL (-0.37, 0.18); I2 = 40%]. In the network meta-analysis, the effects of DHA and EPA on plasma CRP [MDDHA versus EPA = -0.33 mg/L (-0.75, 0.10)], IL-6 [MDDHA versus EPA = 0.09 pg/mL (-0.12, 0.30)], and TNF-α [MDDHA versus EPA = -0.02 pg/mL (-0.25, 0.20)] were also similar. DHA and EPA had similar effects on plasma adiponectin in the network meta-analysis. Results from pairwise and network meta-analyses suggest that supplementation with either DHA or EPA does not differentially modify systemic markers of subclinical inflammation.


Subject(s)
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Dietary Supplements , Docosahexaenoic Acids/pharmacology , Double-Blind Method , Eicosapentaenoic Acid , Humans , Inflammation , Network Meta-Analysis
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL