Is coffee consumption associated with a lower risk of hyperuricaemia or gout? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract In this systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis, we aim to assess whether coffee and tea consumption is related to the risk of glioma. We performed a systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the EuropePMC up until 1st October 2020. Exposures in this study were coffee and tea consumption. The main outcome of this study was the incidence of glioma. This study compares the association between the exposure of coffee and tea with the incidence of glioma, the results are reported in Relative Risks (RRs). There are 12 unique studies comprising of 1,960,731 participants with 2,987 glioma cases. Higher coffee consumption was associated with a statistically non-significant trend towards lower risk of glioma (RR 0.77 [0.55, 1.03], p=0.11; I2: 75.27%). Meta-regression showed that the association between coffee and glioma was reduced by smoking (p=0.029). Higher tea consumption was associated with the lower risk of glioma (RR 0.84 [0.71, 0.98], p=0.030; I2: 16.42%). Sensitivity analysis by removal of case-control studies showed that higher coffee consumption (RR 0.85 [0.72, 1.00], p=0.046; I2: 0%) and higher tea consumption (RR 0.81 [0.70, 0.93], p=0.004; I2: 0%, Pnon-linearity=0.140) were associated with lower risk of glioma. Dose-response meta-analysis showed that every 1 cup of coffee per day decreases the risk of glioma by 3% (RR 0.97 [0.94, 0.99], p=0.016, Pnon-linearity=0.054) and every 1 cup of tea per day decreases the risk of glioma by 3% (RR 0.97 [0.94, 1.00], p=0.048). This meta-analysis showed apparent association between coffee and tea intake and risk of glioma.

Download Full-text

Coffee consumption and risk of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038902 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e038902 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Xiaonan Chen ◽

Yiqiao Zhao ◽

Zijia Tao ◽

Kefeng Wang

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Cohort Studies ◽

Lower Risk ◽

Linear Trend ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Coffee Consumption ◽

Significant Linear Trend ◽

Fatal Prostate Cancer

ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis of cohort studies to evaluate the association of coffee consumption with the risk of prostate cancer.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched for eligible studies up to September 2020.Study selectionCohort studies were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo researchers independently reviewed the studies and extracted the data. Data synthesis was performed via systematic review and meta-analysis of eligible cohort studies. Meta-analysis was performed with the “metan” and “glst” commands in Stata 14.0.Main outcomes and measuresProstate cancer was the main outcome. It was classified as localised prostate cancer which included localised or non-aggressive cancers; advanced prostate cancer which included advanced or aggressive cancers; or fatal prostate cancer which included fatal/lethal cancers or prostate cancer-specific deaths.ResultsSixteen prospective cohort studies were finally included, with 57 732 cases of prostate cancer and 1 081 586 total cohort members. Higher coffee consumption was significantly associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer. Compared with the lowest category of coffee consumption, the pooled relative risk (RR) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.98), I2= 53.2%) for the highest category of coffee consumption. There was a significant linear trend for the association (p=0.006 for linear trend), with a pooled RR of 0.988 (95% CI 0.981 to 0.995) for each increment of one cup of coffee per day. For localised, advanced and fatal prostate cancer, the pooled RRs were 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.99), 0.88 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.09) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.08), respectively. No evidence of publication bias was indicated in this meta-analysis.ConclusionsThis study suggests that a higher intake of coffee may be associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer.

Download Full-text

Dairy food consumption is associated with a lower risk of the metabolic syndrome and its components: a systematic review and meta-analysis

British Journal Of Nutrition ◽

10.1017/s0007114518001460 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 120 (4) ◽

pp. 373-384 ◽

Cited By ~ 21

Author(s):

Mijin Lee ◽

Hanna Lee ◽

Jihye Kim

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Metabolic Syndrome ◽

Food Consumption ◽

Lower Risk ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Dairy Food ◽

Dairy Foods ◽

The Metabolic Syndrome ◽

Cross Sectional Studies

AbstractA systematic review and a meta-analysis of observational studies were performed to assess the dose–response relationship between specific types of dairy foods and the risk of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components. Studies of dairy foods and the risk of the MetS and its components published up to June 2016 were searched using PubMed, EMBASE and a reference search. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled relative risks (RR) with 95 % CI. Finally, ten cross-sectional studies, two nested case–control studies and twenty-nine cohort studies were included for the analysis. In a dose–response analysis of cohort studies and cross-sectional studies, the pooled RR of the MetS for a one-serving/d increment of total dairy food (nine studies) and milk (six studies) consumption (200 g/d) were 0·91 (95 % CI 0·85, 0·96) and 0·87 (95 % CI 0·79, 0·95), respectively. The pooled RR of the MetS for yogurt (three studies) consumption (100 g/d) was 0·82 (95 % CI 0·73, 0·91). Total dairy food consumption was associated with lower risk of MetS components, such as hyperglycaemia, elevated blood pressure, hypertriacylglycerolaemia and low HDL- cholesterol. A one-serving/d increment of milk was related to a 12 % lower risk of abdominal obesity, and a one-serving/d increment of yogurt was associated with a 16 % lower risk of hyperglycaemia. These associations were not significantly different by study design, study location or adjustment factors. This meta-analysis showed that specific types of dairy food consumption such as milk and yogurt as well as total dairy food consumption were inversely related to risk of the MetS and its components.

Download Full-text

The protective association between statins use and adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.1101/2021.02.08.21251070 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Ronald Chow ◽

James Im ◽

Nicholas Chiu ◽

Leonard Chiu ◽

Rahul Aggarwal ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Odds Ratio ◽

Lower Risk ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Adverse Outcomes ◽

Risk Of Mortality ◽

Before And After ◽

Statin Usage ◽

Similar Risk ◽

Ventilation Studies

ABSTRACTIntroductionStatins may reduce a cytokine storm, which has been hypothesized as a possible mechanism of severe COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report on adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients by statin usage.MethodsLiteratures were searched from January 2019 to December 2020 to identify studies that reported the association between statin usage and adverse outcomes, including mortality, ICU admissions, and mechanical ventilation. Studies were meta-analyzed for mortality by the subgroups of ICU status and statin usage before and after COVID-19 hospitalization. Studies reporting an odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed separately.ResultsThirteen cohorts, reporting on 110,078 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Individuals who used statins before their COVID-19 hospitalization showed a similar risk of mortality, compared to those who did not use statins (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.28; OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.38, 1.03). Patients who were administered statins after their COVID-19 diagnosis were at a lower risk of mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.61; OR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.75). The use of statins did not reduce the mortality of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU (OR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.26, 1.64). Among non-ICU patients, statin users were at a lower risk of mortality relative to non-statin users (HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.62; OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.88).ConclusionPatients administered statins after COVID-19 diagnosis or non-ICU admitted patients were at lower risk of mortality relative to non-statin users.

Download Full-text

Abstract WMP112: Cilostazol versus Aspirin for Secondary Stroke Prevention: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Stroke ◽

10.1161/str.51.suppl_1.wmp112 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 51 (Suppl_1) ◽

Author(s):

Michelle P Lin ◽

Kevin M Barrett ◽

James F Meschia ◽

Benjamin H Eidelman ◽

Josephine F Huang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Ischemic Stroke ◽

Random Effects ◽

Intracranial Hemorrhage ◽

Stroke Prevention ◽

Lower Risk ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Secondary Stroke Prevention

Introduction: Cilostazol has promise as an alternative to aspirin for secondary stroke prevention given its vasodilatory and anti-inflammatory properties in addition to platelet aggregation inhibition. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the comparative effectiveness and safety of cilostazol compared to aspirin for stroke prevention in patients with previous stroke or TIA. Hypothesis: Cilostazol is more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent ischemic stroke with lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage and bleeding. Methods: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 2019. Randomized clinical trials that compared cilostazol vs aspirin and reported the endpoints of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage and bleeding were included. A random-effects estimate was computed based on Mantel-Haenszel methods. The pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals were compared between cilostazol and aspirin and displayed as forest plots (Figure). Results: The search identified 5 randomized clinical trials comparing cilostazol vs aspirin for secondary stroke prevention that enrolled 7,240 patients from primarily Asian countries (3,615 received cilostazol and 3,625 received aspirin). The pooled results from the random-effects model showed that cilostazol was associated with significantly lower risk of recurrent ischemic stroke (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.70; 95%CI, 0.54-0.89), intracranial hemorrhage (HR 0.41; 95%CI, 0.25-0.65) and bleeding (HR 0.71; 95%CI, 0.55-0.91). See forest plots. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests cilostazol is more effective than aspirin in the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke with lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage and bleeding. Confirmatory randomized trials of cilostazol for secondary stroke prevention to be performed in more generalizable populations are needed.

Download Full-text

Abstract 15090: Direct Oral Anticoagulation vs Vitamin K Antagonist in Atrial Fibrillation With Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Circulation ◽

10.1161/circ.142.suppl_3.15090 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽

Author(s):

Mahmoud El Iskandarani ◽

Islam Shatla ◽

Muhammad Khalid ◽

Bara El Kurdi ◽

Timir Paul ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Atrial Fibrillation ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Ischemic Stroke ◽

Liver Disease ◽

Vitamin K ◽

Major Bleeding ◽

Lower Risk ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Vitamin K Antagonist ◽

All Cause Mortality

Background: Current guidelines recommend against the use of direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the setting of significant liver disease (LD) due to lack of evidence in safety and efficacy studies. However, recently studies have investigated the role of DOAC in comparison to Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in this category of patients. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this approach. Hypothesis: DOAC is safe and effective compared to VKA in AF with LD patients. Method: Unrestricted search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases performed from inception until June 1, 2020 for studies comparing DOAC with VKA including more than 100 AF patients with LD. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed using Revman 5.3 software. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% Confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model. Result: A total of 5 studies (3 retrospective and 2 post hoc analysis) were included examining 39,064 patients with AF and LD (25,398 DOAC vs 13,669 VKA). DOAC is associated with lower risk of major bleeding compared to VKA with a HR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.47-0.98; I 2 =53%), all-cause mortality (HR 0.74;95% CI 0.59-0.94; I 2 =61%), and intracranial bleeding (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.40-0.58; I 2 =0). There was no significant difference in ischemic stroke risk (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.47-1.14; I 2 =72%) and gastrointestinal bleeding risk (0.96; 95% CI 0.61-1.51; I 2 =41%) between DOAC and VKA. Conclusion: DOAC is non-inferior to VKA regarding ischemic stroke prevention in AF patients with LD. Moreover, DOAC is associated with a lower risk of major bleeding, intracranial bleeding and all-cause mortality. Further randomized trials are needed to validate our findings.

Download Full-text