Omega-3 Blood Levels and Stroke Risk: A Pooled and Harmonized Analysis of 183 291 Participants From 29 Prospective Studies.

BACKGROUND: The effect of marine omega-3 PUFAs on risk of stroke remains unclear. METHODS: We investigated the associations between circulating and tissue omega-3 PUFA levels and incident stroke (total, ischemic, and hemorrhagic) in 29 international prospective cohorts. Each site conducted a de novo individual-level analysis using a prespecified analytical protocol with defined exposures, covariates, analytical methods, and outcomes; the harmonized data from the studies were then centrally pooled. Multivariable-adjusted HRs and 95% CIs across omega-3 PUFA quintiles were computed for each stroke outcome. RESULTS: Among 183 291 study participants, there were 10 561 total strokes, 8220 ischemic strokes, and 1142 hemorrhagic strokes recorded over a median of 14.3 years follow-up. For eicosapentaenoic acid, comparing quintile 5 (Q5, highest) with quintile 1 (Q1, lowest), total stroke incidence was 17% lower (HR, 0.83 [CI, 0.76-0.91]; P<0.0001), and ischemic stroke was 18% lower (HR, 0.82 [CI, 0.74-0.91]; P<0.0001). For docosahexaenoic acid, comparing Q5 with Q1, there was a 12% lower incidence of total stroke (HR, 0.88 [CI, 0.81-0.96]; P=0.0001) and a 14% lower incidence of ischemic stroke (HR, 0.86 [CI, 0.78-0.95]; P=0.0001). Neither eicosapentaenoic acid nor docosahexaenoic acid was associated with a risk for hemorrhagic stroke. These associations were not modified by either baseline history of AF or prevalent CVD. CONCLUSIONS: Higher omega-3 PUFA levels are associated with lower risks of total and ischemic stroke but have no association with hemorrhagic stroke.

Dietary protein and blood pressure: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and evaluation of the evidence.

INTRODUCTION: This umbrella review aimed to investigate the evidence of an effect of dietary intake of total protein, animal and plant protein on blood pressure (BP), and hypertension (PROSPERO: CRD42018082395). METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Database were systematically searched for systematic reviews (SRs) of prospective studies with or without meta-analysis published between 05/2007 and 10/2022. The methodological quality and outcome-specific certainty of evidence were assessed by the AMSTAR 2 and NutriGrade tools, followed by an assessment of the overall certainty of evidence. SRs investigating specific protein sources are described in this review, but not included in the assessment of the overall certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Sixteen SRs were considered eligible for the umbrella review. Ten of the SRs investigated total protein intake, six animal protein, six plant protein and four animal vs. plant protein. The majority of the SRs reported no associations or effects of total, animal and plant protein on BP (all "possible" evidence), whereby the uncertainty regarding the effects on BP was particularly high for plant protein. Two SRs addressing milk-derived protein showed a reduction in BP; in contrast, SRs investigating soy protein found no effect on BP. The outcome-specific certainty of evidence of the SRs was mostly rated as low. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This umbrella review showed uncertainties whether there are any effects on BP from the intake of total protein, or animal or plant proteins, specifically. Based on data from two SRs with milk protein, it cannot be excluded that certain types of protein could favourably influence BP.

Protein intake and cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews for the evidence-based guideline of the German Nutrition Society.

PURPOSE: It has been proposed that a higher habitual protein intake may increase cancer risk, possibly via upregulated insulin-like growth factor signalling. Since a systematic evaluation of human studies on protein intake and cancer risk based on a standardised assessment of systematic reviews (SRs) is lacking, we carried out an umbrella review of SRs on protein intake in relation to risks of different types of cancer. METHODS: Following a pre-specified protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42018082395), we retrieved SRs on protein intake and cancer risk published before January 22th 2024, and assessed the methodological quality and outcome-specific certainty of the evidence using a modified version of AMSTAR 2 and NutriGrade, respectively. The overall certainty of evidence was rated according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: Ten SRs were identified, of which eight included meta-analyses. Higher total protein intake was not associated with risks of breast, prostate, colorectal, ovarian, or pancreatic cancer incidence. The methodological quality of the included SRs ranged from critically low (kidney cancer), low (pancreatic, ovarian and prostate cancer) and moderate (breast and prostate cancer) to high (colorectal cancer). The outcome-specific certainty of the evidence underlying the reported findings on protein intake and cancer risk ranged from very low (pancreatic, ovarian and prostate cancer) to low (colorectal, ovarian, prostate, and breast cancer). Animal and plant protein intakes were not associated with cancer risks either at a low (breast and prostate cancer) or very low (pancreatic and prostate cancer) outcome-specific certainty of the evidence. Overall, the evidence for the lack of an association between protein intake and (i) colorectal cancer risk and (ii) breast cancer risk was rated as possible. By contrast, the evidence underlying the other reported results was rated as insufficient. CONCLUSION: The present findings suggest that higher total protein intake may not be associated with the risk of colorectal and breast cancer, while conclusions on protein intake in relation to risks of other types of cancer are restricted due to insufficient evidence.