RESUMO
Cohort and case-control data have suggested an association between low to moderate alcohol consumption and decreased risk of ischemic heart disease (IHD), yet results from Mendelian randomization (MR) studies designed to reduce bias have shown either no or a harmful association. Here we conducted an updated systematic review and re-evaluated existing cohort, case-control, and MR data using the burden of proof meta-analytical framework. Cohort and case-control data show low to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with decreased IHD risk - specifically, intake is inversely related to IHD and myocardial infarction morbidity in both sexes and IHD mortality in males - while pooled MR data show no association, confirming that self-reported versus genetically predicted alcohol use data yield conflicting findings about the alcohol-IHD relationship. Our results highlight the need to advance MR methodologies and emulate randomized trials using large observational databases to obtain more definitive answers to this critical public health question.
Assuntos
Consumo de Bebidas Alcoólicas , Análise da Randomização Mendeliana , Isquemia Miocárdica , Humanos , Isquemia Miocárdica/epidemiologia , Consumo de Bebidas Alcoólicas/epidemiologia , Masculino , Feminino , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Infarto do Miocárdio/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
As a leading behavioral risk factor for numerous health outcomes, smoking is a major ongoing public health challenge. Although evidence on the health effects of smoking has been widely reported, few attempts have evaluated the dose-response relationship between smoking and a diverse range of health outcomes systematically and comprehensively. In the present study, we re-estimated the dose-response relationships between current smoking and 36 health outcomes by conducting systematic reviews up to 31 May 2022, employing a meta-analytic method that incorporates between-study heterogeneity into estimates of uncertainty. Among the 36 selected outcomes, 8 had strong-to-very-strong evidence of an association with smoking, 21 had weak-to-moderate evidence of association and 7 had no evidence of association. By overcoming many of the limitations of traditional meta-analyses, our approach provides comprehensive, up-to-date and easy-to-use estimates of the evidence on the health effects of smoking. These estimates provide important information for tobacco control advocates, policy makers, researchers, physicians, smokers and the public.
