Caffeine intake from coffee or tea and cognitive disorders: a meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Observational epidemiological studies such as cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies have reported inconsistent findings regarding the association between caffeine intake from coffee or tea and the risk of cognitive disorders such as dementia, Alzheimer's disease, cognitive impairment, and cognitive decline. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE in September 2014. Three evaluators independently extracted and reviewed articles, based on predetermined selection criteria. RESULTS: Out of 293 articles identified through the search and bibliographies of relevant articles, 20 epidemiological studies from 19 articles, which involved 31,479 participants (8,398 in six cross-sectional studies, 4,601 in five case-control studies, and 19,918 in nine cohort studies), were included in the final analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) or relative risk (RR) of caffeine intake from coffee or tea for cognitive disorders (dementia, Alzheimer's disease, cognitive impairment, and cognitive decline) was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.01, I² = 63.2%) in a random-effects meta-analysis. In the subgroup meta-analysis by caffeine sources, the summary OR or RR of coffee intake was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98; I² = 44.8%). However, in the subgroup meta-analysis by study design, the summary estimates (RR or OR) of coffee intake for cognitive disorders were 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50-0.98; I² = 42.0%) for cross-sectional studies, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.55-1.24; I² = 33.4%) for case-control studies, and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.59-1.36; I² = 60.0%) for cohort studies. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found that caffeine intake from coffee or tea was not associated with the risk of cognitive disorders.

Efficacy of omega-3 fatty acid supplements (eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid) in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Although previous randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials reported the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acid supplements in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the evidence remains inconclusive. Using a meta-analysis, we investigated the efficacy of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid in the secondary prevention of CVD. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library in April 2011. Two of us independently reviewed and selected eligible randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Of 1007 articles retrieved, 14 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (involving 20 485 patients with a history of CVD) were included in the final analyses. Supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids did not reduce the risk of overall cardiovascular events (relative risk, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.09), all-cause mortality, sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or transient ischemic attack and stroke. There was a small reduction in cardiovascular death (relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99), which disappeared when we excluded a study with major methodological problems. Furthermore, no significant preventive effect was observed in subgroup analyses by the following: country location, inland or coastal geographic area, history of CVD, concomitant medication use, type of placebo material in the trial, methodological quality of the trial, duration of treatment, dosage of eicosapentaenoic acid or docosahexaenoic acid, or use of fish oil supplementation only as treatment. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed insufficient evidence of a secondary preventive effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements against overall cardiovascular events among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease.