Association between sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drinks and type 2 diabetes: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies.

The intake of sugar-sweetened soft drinks has been reported to be associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, but it is unclear whether this is because of the sugar content or related lifestyle factors, whether similar associations hold for artificially sweetened soft drinks, and how these associations are related to BMI. We aimed to conduct a systematic literature review and dose-response meta-analysis of evidence from prospective cohorts to explore these issues. We searched multiple sources for prospective studies on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drinks in relation to the risk of type 2 diabetes. Data were extracted from eleven publications on nine cohorts. Consumption values were converted to ml/d, permitting the exploration of linear and non-linear dose-response trends. Summary relative risks (RR) were estimated using a random-effects meta-analysis. The summary RR for sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drinks were 1·20/330 ml per d (95 % CI 1·12, 1·29, P< 0·001) and 1·13/330 ml per d (95 % CI 1·02, 1·25, P= 0·02), respectively. The association with sugar-sweetened soft drinks was slightly lower in studies adjusting for BMI, consistent with BMI being involved in the causal pathway. There was no evidence of effect modification, though both these comparisons lacked power. Overall between-study heterogeneity was high. The included studies were observational, so their results should be interpreted cautiously, but findings indicate a positive association between sugar-sweetened soft drink intake and type 2 diabetes risk, attenuated by adjustment for BMI. The trend was less consistent for artificially sweetened soft drinks. This may indicate an alternative explanation, such as lifestyle factors or reverse causality. Future research should focus on the temporal nature of the association and whether BMI modifies or mediates the association.

Effectiveness of smartphone technologies on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review with meta-analysis of 17 trials.

Patient education and behavioural interventions for self-management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are effective but place demands on manpower resources. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effectiveness of smartphone technologies (STs) for improving glycaemic control among T2DM patients. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ScienceDirect were searched through December 2016. Randomized controlled trials comparing STs with usual diabetes care among T2DM patients and reporting change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level were included. Seventeen trials (2,225 participants) were included. There was a significant reduction in HbA1c (pooled weighted mean difference: -0.51%; 95% confidence interval: -0.71% to -0.30%; p < 0.001), favouring ST intervention. The pooled weighted mean difference was -0.83% in patients with T2DM <8.5 years and -0.22% in patients with T2DM ≥8.5 years, with significant subgroup difference (p = 0.007). No subgroup differences were found among different follow-up durations, trial locations, patients' age, healthcare provider contract time, baseline body mass index and baseline HbA1c. Compared with usual diabetes care, STs improved glycaemic control among T2DM patients, especially for patients at earlier disease stages (duration of diagnosis <8.5 years). STs could be a complement or alternative to labour-intensive patient education and behavioural interventions, but more studies on up-to-date technologies are needed.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the gastrointestinal benefits of COX-2 selective inhibitors with concomitant use of low-dose aspirin.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether concurrent use of low-dose aspirin removes the gastrointestinal benefit displayed by COX-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs) when compared to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). AIM: To evaluate the gastrointestinal risks associated with coxibs and traditional NSAIDs and the interaction with concurrent use of low-dose aspirin. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library through April 2016 to identify randomised trials comparing the gastrointestinal risk between coxibs and traditional NSAIDs in patients taking or not taking low-dose aspirin. Results were combined using random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses by concurrent use of aspirin were undertaken. RESULTS: Eleven trials (84 150 participants) were included. The overall relative risk (RR) of coxibs vs. traditional NSAIDs for complicated gastrointestinal events was 0.54 (95% CI, confidence interval 0.32-0.92), with a significant subgroup difference (P = 0.04) according to concurrent use of aspirin (used: RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.66-1.24; not used: RR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.83). The overall RR for clinical gastrointestinal events was 0.59 (95% CI 0.47-0.75), with a significant subgroup difference according to aspirin usage (P = 0.008; used: RR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.95; not used: RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.39-0.64). Overall coxibs were associated with significantly lower risk of symptomatic ulcers (RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.50-0.72) and endoscopic ulcers (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.53) than traditional NSAIDs; a significant subgroup difference was shown for endoscopic ulcers (P = 0.05) but not for symptomatic ulcers (P = 0.27). CONCLUSION: Concomitant use of low-dose aspirin reduces but does not completely eliminate the gastrointestinal benefit of coxibs over traditional NSAIDs.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: comparative effectiveness and safety of strategies for preventing NSAID-associated gastrointestinal toxicity.

BACKGROUND: Many strategies are used to prevent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-associated gastrointestinal toxicity, but the comparative effectiveness remains unclear. AIM: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of clinical strategies for preventing gastrointestinal toxicity induced by NSAIDs. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library (from their inception to May 2015) were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events in patients taking nonselective NSAIDs, selective cyclooxygenase(COX)-2 inhibitors or nonselective NSAIDs/COX-2 inhibitors plus gastroprotective agents [proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists, misoprostol]. Both pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 82 trials including 125 053 participants. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that selective COX-2 inhibitors + PPIs [Risk ratio (RR), 95% Credible Interval (CrI): ulcer complications 0.07, 0.02-0.18], selective COX-2 inhibitors (RR, 95% CrI: ulcer complications 0.25, 0.15- 0.38; symptomatic ulcer 0.12, 0.04-0.30), nonselective NSAIDs + PPIs (RR, 95% CrI: ulcer complications 0.28, 0.18-0.41; symptomatic ulcer 0.11, 0.04-0.23), nonselective NSAIDs + misoprostol (RR, 95% CrI: ulcer complications 0.47, 0.24-0.81; symptomatic ulcer 0.41, 0.13-1.00) were associated with significantly lower risk of clinical gastrointestinal events compared with nonselective NSAIDs. For all effectiveness endpoints, selective COX-2 inhibitors + PPIs was associated with the lowest absolute event probability and the highest rank, followed by selective COX-2 inhibitors and thirdly by nonselective NSAIDs + PPIs. CONCLUSION: The combination of selective COX-2 inhibitors plus PPIs provides the best gastrointestinal protection, followed by selective COX-2 inhibitors, and thirdly by nonselective NSAIDs plus PPIs.

Dietary fibre intake and risk of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in the UK Women's Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Stroke risk is modifiable through many risk factors, one being healthy dietary habits. Fibre intake was associated with a reduced stroke risk in recent meta-analyses; however, data were contributed by relatively few studies, and few examined different stroke types. METHODS: A total of 27,373 disease-free women were followed up for 14.4 years. Diet was assessed with a 217-item food frequency questionnaire and stroke cases were identified using English Hospital Episode Statistics and mortality records. Survival analysis was applied to assess the risk of total, ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke in relation to fibre intake. RESULTS: A total of 135 haemorrhagic and 184 ischaemic stroke cases were identified in addition to 138 cases where the stroke type was unknown or not recorded. Greater intake of total fibre, higher fibre density and greater soluble fibre, insoluble fibre and fibre from cereals were associated with a significantly lower risk for total stroke. For total stroke, the hazard ratio per 6 g/day total fibre intake was 0.89 (95% confidence intervals: 0.81-0.99). Different findings were observed for haemorrhagic and ischaemic stroke in healthy-weight or overweight women. Total fibre, insoluble fibre and cereal fibre were inversely associated with haemorrhagic stroke risk in overweight/obese participants, and in healthy-weight women greater cereal fibre was associated with a lower ischaemic stroke risk. In non-hypertensive women, higher fibre density was associated with lower ischaemic stroke risk. CONCLUSIONS: Greater total fibre and fibre from cereals are associated with a lower stroke risk, and associations were more consistent with ischaemic stroke. The different observations by stroke type, body mass index group or hypertensive status indicates potentially different mechanisms.

Vitamin C intake from diary recordings and risk of breast cancer in the UK Dietary Cohort Consortium.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Vitamin C intake has been inversely associated with breast cancer risk in case-control studies, but not in meta-analyses of cohort studies using Food Frequency Questionnaires, which can over-report fruit and vegetable intake, the main source of vitamin C. This is the first study to investigate associations between vitamin C intake and breast cancer risk using food diaries. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Estimated dietary vitamin C intake was derived from 4-7 day food diaries pooled from five prospective studies in the UK Dietary Cohort Consortium. This nested case-control study of 707 incident breast cancer cases and 2144 matched controls examined breast cancer risk in relation to dietary vitamin C intake using conditional logistic regression adjusting for relevant covariates. Additionally, total vitamin C intake from supplements and diet was analysed in three cohorts. RESULTS: No evidence of associations was observed between breast cancer risk and vitamin C intake analysed for dietary vitamin C intake (odds ratios (OR)=0.98 per 60 mg/day, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.09, P (trend)=0.7), dietary vitamin C density (OR=0.97 per 60 mg/day, 95% CI: 0.87-1.07, P (trend)=0.5 ) or total vitamin C intake (OR=1.01 per 60 mg/day, 95% CI: 0.99-1.03, P (trend)=0.3). Additionally, there was no significant association for post-menopausal women (OR=1.02 per 60 mg/day, 95% CI: 0.99-1.05, P (trend)=0.3). CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis of individual UK women found no evidence of significant associations between breast cancer incidence and dietary or total vitamin C intake derived uniquely from detailed diary recordings.