-
1.
Lifestyle-, environmental-, and additional health factors associated with an increased sperm DNA fragmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Szabó, A, Váncsa, S, Hegyi, P, Váradi, A, Forintos, A, Filipov, T, Ács, J, Ács, N, Szarvas, T, Nyirády, P, et al
Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E. 2023;21(1):5
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
The World Health Organization defines infertility as regular unprotected sexual intercourse without achieving conception within a year. In recent years, there has been a growing demand for functional, objective parameters reflecting fertility status more clearly than classical parameters. Of these, sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) and the DNA fragmentation index – denoting the percentage of sperm with damaged DNA – seem to be of utmost importance. The aim of this study was to investigate all risk factors that may potentially be increasing SDF. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of one hundred and ninety articles. The earliest studies were published in 2003, and the latest in 2021. Results show that several modifiable risk factors negatively affect SDF, namely; a. health conditions: varicocele [when veins become enlarged inside the pouch of skin that holds the testicles] and impaired glucose tolerance, b. infections: Chlamydia, c. malignancies: testicular tumours, and d. lifestyle factors: smoking, alcohol consumption and body mass index. Authors conclude that several lifestyle-, environmental-, and additional health factors are associated with increased SDF.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Infertility affects one in every six couples in developed countries, and approximately 50% is of male origin. In 2021, sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) testing became an evidence-based test for fertility evaluations depicting fertility more clearly than standard semen parameters. Therefore, we aimed to summarize the potential prognostic factors of a higher SDF. METHODS We conducted a systematic search in three medical databases and included studies investigating any risk factors for SDF values. We calculated mean differences (MD) in SDF with 95% confidence interval (CI) for exposed and non-exposed individuals. RESULTS We included 190 studies in our analysis. In the group of associated health conditions, varicocele (MD = 13.62%, CI: 9.39-17.84) and impaired glucose tolerance (MD = 13.75%, CI: 6.99-20.51) had the most significant increase in SDF. Among malignancies, testicular tumors had the highest impact, with a maximum of MD = 11.3% (CI: 7.84-14.76). Among infections, the overall effects of both Chlamydia and HPV were negligible. Of lifestyle factors, smoking had the most disruptive effect on SDF - an increase of 9.19% (CI: 4.33-14.06). Different periods of sexual abstinence did not show significant variations in SDF values. Age seemed to have a more drastic effect on SDF from age 50 onwards, with a mean difference of 12.58% (CI: 7.31-17.86). Pollution also had a detrimental effect - 9.68% (CI: 6.85-12.52). CONCLUSION Of the above risk factors, varicocele, impaired glucose tolerance, testicular tumors, smoking, pollution, and paternal age of over 50 were associated with the highest SDF. TRIAL REGISTRATION CRD42021282533.
-
2.
Effectiveness of Therapeutic Patient Education Interventions in Obesity and Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Correia, JC, Waqas, A, Huat, TS, Gariani, K, Jornayvaz, FR, Golay, A, Pataky, Z
Nutrients. 2022;14(18)
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Obesity and diabetes mellitus (DM) account for the highest burden of non-communicable diseases. Obesity is also highly comorbid with type 2 DM with a prevalence of 8.5% among adults around the globe. The aims of this study were to present (a) a critical synthesis of the theoretical basis and development of therapeutic patient education (TPE) interventions for obesity and diabetes, and (b) quantitative evidence for the efficacy of these interventions across a range of biomedical, psychosocial and psychological outcomes. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of fifty-four randomised controlled trials. Results show that: - TPE interventions bring about significant improvements in biomedical outcomes among patients with DM and obesity. - there weren’t significant differences in the quality of life of participants undergoing TPE interventions (inconclusive as only data from two studies were considered). - interventions delivered through different media and delivery formats may be equally effective. Authors conclude that the use of electronic media such as short messaging services, website-based educational programs and animation media can be used to deliver TPE effectively.
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus (DM) and obesity account for the highest burden of non-communicable diseases. There is increasing evidence showing therapeutic patient education (TPE) as a clinically and cost-effective solution to improve biomedical and psychosocial outcomes among people with DM and obesity. The present systematic review and meta-analysis present a critical synthesis of the development of TPE interventions for DM and obesity and the efficacy of these interventions across a range of biomedical, psychosocial and psychological outcomes. A total of 54 of these RCTs were identified among patients with obesity and diabetes and were thus qualitatively synthesized. Out of these, 47 were included in the quantitative synthesis. There was substantial heterogeneity in the reporting of these outcomes (I2 = 88.35%, Q = 317.64), with a significant improvement noted in serum HbA1c levels (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.272, 95% CI: 0.118 to 0.525, n = 7360) and body weight (SMD = 0.526, 95% CI: 0.205 to 0.846, n = 1082) in the intervention group. The effect sizes were comparable across interventions delivered by different modes and delivery agents. These interventions can be delivered by allied health staff, doctors or electronically as self-help programs, with similar effectiveness (p < 0.001). These interventions should be implemented in healthcare and community settings to improve the health outcomes in patients suffering from obesity and DM.
-
3.
Causal relationship between obesity, lifestyle factors and risk of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a univariable and multivariable Mendelian randomization study.
Wang, YB, Yang, L, Deng, YQ, Yan, SY, Luo, LS, Chen, P, Zeng, XT
Journal of translational medicine. 2022;20(1):495
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common benign disease in middle-aged and elderly men which is often underestimated and underdiagnosed. If patients are not treated in time, it may lead to serious complications, such as urinary retention, renal insufficiency and renal failure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible causal associations of abdominal obesity (measured as waist circumference), overall obesity (measured as body mass index), lifestyle factors (dietary habits, smoking, alcohol drinking, and sedentary behaviour) with risk of BPH. This study is a univariable and multivariable mendelian randomised study. Results show that genetic predisposition to higher waist circumference and sedentary behaviour are independently and causally associated with the risk of BPH. However, there isn’t conclusive evidence that genetic predisposition to relative carbohydrate, fat, protein, and sugar intake, smoking and alcohol drinking are causally associated with the risk of BPH. Authors conclude that further studies are needed to identify comprehensive risk factors on BPH and develop freely accessible prediction models for the BPH. These will help to identify individuals at particular risk and provide decision-making supports for individualised intervention.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Obesity (waist circumference, body mass index (BMI)) and lifestyle factors (dietary habits, smoking, alcohol drinking, Sedentary behavior) have been associated with risk of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in observational studies, but whether these associations are causal is unclear. METHODS We performed a univariable and multivariable Mendelian randomization study to evaluate these associations. Genetic instruments associated with exposures at the genome-wide significance level (P < 5 × 10-8) were selected from corresponding genome-wide associations studies (n = 216,590 to 1,232,091 individuals). Summary-level data for BPH were obtained from the UK Biobank (14,126 cases and 169,762 non-cases) and FinnGen consortium (13,118 cases and 72,799 non-cases). Results from UK Biobank and FinnGen consortium were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis. RESULTS The combined odds ratios (ORs) of BPH were 1.24 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-1.43, P = 0.0045), 1.08 (95% CI 1.01-1.17, P = 0.0175), 0.94 (95% CI 0.67-1.30, P = 0.6891), 1.29 (95% CI 0.88-1.89, P = 0.1922), 1.23 (95% CI 0.85-1.78, P = 0.2623), and 1.04 (95% CI 0.76-1.42, P = 0.8165) for one standard deviation (SD) increase in waist circumference, BMI, and relative carbohydrate, fat, protein and sugar intake, 1.05 (95% CI 0.92-1.20, P = 0.4581) for one SD increase in prevalence of smoking initiation, 1.10 (95% CI 0.96-1.26, P = 0.1725) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.69-1.02, P = 0.0741) for one SD increase of log-transformed smoking per day and drinks per week, and 1.31 (95% CI 1.08-1.58, P = 0.0051) for one SD increase in sedentary behavior. Genetically predicted waist circumference (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.11-1.43, P = 0.0004) and sedentary behavior (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.05-1.23, P = 0.0021) were associated with BPH after the adjustment of BMI. CONCLUSION This study supports independent causal roles of high waist circumference, BMI and sedentary behavior in BPH.
-
4.
Laboratory features of severe vs. non-severe COVID-19 patients in Asian populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ghahramani, S, Tabrizi, R, Lankarani, KB, Kashani, SMA, Rezaei, S, Zeidi, N, Akbari, M, Heydari, ST, Akbari, H, Nowrouzi-Sohrabi, P, et al
European journal of medical research. 2020;25(1):30
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak started in December 2019 in China has spread sharply all over the world. Apart from the clinical symptoms and pulmonary computed tomography findings, a large number of COVID-19 confirmed patients showed laboratory fluctuations. The aim of this study was to quantify the results of previously published studies, comparing the laboratory fluctuations, and some new combined inflammatory laboratory tests in severe/critical versus non-severe confirmed infected cases of COVID-19. This study is a systemic review and meta-analysis which included 22 studies with a total of 3396 patients who were classed into two groups: 720 in severe and 2676 in non-severe groups. Results showed that the results of complete blood count test, liver and kidney function tests, inflammatory/infection markers, serum electrolytes and glucose were significantly different between severe and non-severe cases of COVID-19. In fact, there was significant decreased levels of certain types of white blood cells (lymphocyte, monocyte, eosinophil), haemoglobin, and platelet, whereas elevated neutrophil [white blood cell] counts among the complete blood count indices in severe vs. non-severe patients. Authors conclude that further well-methodologically designed studies from other populations are strongly recommended.
Abstract
BACKGROUND More severe cases of COVID- 19 are more likely to be hospitalized and around one-fifth, needing ICU admission. Understanding the common laboratory features of COVID-19 in more severe cases versus non-severe patients could be quite useful for clinicians and might help to predict the model of disease progression. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the laboratory test findings in severe vs. non-severe confirmed infected cases of COVID-19. METHODS Electronic databases were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from the beginning of 2019 to 3rd of March 2020. Heterogeneity across included studies was determined using Cochrane's Q test and the I2 statistic. We used the fixed or random-effect models to pool the weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). FINDINGS Out of a total of 3009 citations, 17 articles (22 studies, 21 from China and one study from Singapore) with 3396 ranging from 12 to1099 patients were included. Our meta-analyses showed a significant decrease in lymphocyte, monocyte, and eosinophil, hemoglobin, platelet, albumin, serum sodium, lymphocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LCR), leukocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LeCR), leukocyte to IL-6 ratio (LeIR), and an increase in the neutrophil, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine (Cr), erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), Procalcitonin (PCT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), fibrinogen, prothrombin time (PT), D-dimer, glucose level, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in the severe group compared with the non-severe group. No significant changes in white blood cells (WBC), Creatine Kinase (CK), troponin I, myoglobin, IL-6 and K between the two groups were observed. INTERPRETATION This meta-analysis provides evidence for the differentiation of severe cases of COVID-19 based on laboratory test results at the time of ICU admission. Future well-methodologically designed studies from other populations are strongly recommended.
-
5.
Prevalence, Severity and Mortality associated with COPD and Smoking in patients with COVID-19: A Rapid Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Alqahtani, JS, Oyelade, T, Aldhahir, AM, Alghamdi, SM, Almehmadi, M, Alqahtani, AS, Quaderi, S, Mandal, S, Hurst, JR
PloS one. 2020;15(5):e0233147
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
This meta-analysis reviewed 15 studies covering a total of 2473 confirmed COVID-19 patients to summarise the potential risk factors for smokers and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a dysfunction of the lung associated with limitation in airflow. They found that neither COPD or smoking increased the initial risk of contracting COVID-19 with only 2% and 9% respectively of the cases falling into these categories. However, both groups had increased risk of developing more servere forms of COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation, admission to Intensive Care Units (ICU), mechanical ventilation, and ultimately death, with a much higher mortality rate of 60% versus other patients. Current smokers were also shown to have double the risk of complications versus ex-smokers. The most severe cases were generally in the older age brackets, with coexisting comorbidities and a hypothesized greater amount of lung damage. Both groups showed signs of acute inflammation and had a much slower recovery compared to non-smokers and patients without COPD. Despite the low prevalence of these groups contracting COVID-19, these people should be considered vulnerable because of the severity of symptoms and greater burden on healthcare.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an evolving infectious disease that dramatically spread all over the world in the early part of 2020. No studies have yet summarized the potential severity and mortality risks caused by COVID-19 in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and we update information in smokers. METHODS We systematically searched electronic databases from inception to March 24, 2020. Data were extracted by two independent authors in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Study quality was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We synthesized a narrative from eligible studies and conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model to calculate pooled prevalence rates and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS In total, 123 abstracts were screened and 61 full-text manuscripts were reviewed. A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria, which included a total of 2473 confirmed COVID-19 patients. All studies were included in the meta-analysis. The crude case fatality rate of COVID-19 was 7.4%. The pooled prevalence rates of COPD patients and smokers in COVID-19 cases were 2% (95% CI, 1%-3%) and 9% (95% CI, 4%-14%) respectively. COPD patients were at a higher risk of more severe disease (risk of severity = 63%, (22/35) compared to patients without COPD 33.4% (409/1224) [calculated RR, 1.88 (95% CI, 1.4-2.4)]. This was associated with higher mortality (60%). Our results showed that 22% (31/139) of current smokers and 46% (13/28) of ex-smokers had severe complications. The calculated RR showed that current smokers were 1.45 times more likely [95% CI: 1.03-2.04] to have severe complications compared to former and never smokers. Current smokers also had a higher mortality rate of 38.5%. CONCLUSION Although COPD prevalence in COVID-19 cases was low in current reports, COVID-19 infection was associated with substantial severity and mortality rates in COPD. Compared to former and never smokers, current smokers were at greater risk of severe complications and higher mortality rate. Effective preventive measures are required to reduce COVID-19 risk in COPD patients and current smokers.
-
6.
Nutritional labelling for healthier food or non-alcoholic drink purchasing and consumption.
Crockett, RA, King, SE, Marteau, TM, Prevost, AT, Bignardi, G, Roberts, NW, Stubbs, B, Hollands, GJ, Jebb, SA
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;2:CD009315
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Poor quality diets are a threat to health internationally and a challenge to health services. Implementing methods to change people's choices is difficult; even those who start making healthier choices often find it hard to maintain long-term. There is recognition that our environment has a powerful influence over our food choices and altering this may stimulate behavioural change. Nutritional labels provide information about the nutritional content of a food or drink. The type of information provided varies e.g. what nutrients they describe (e.g. macronutrients like fat or energy content) and the form also varies e.g. as a single number, as a proportion of a guideline for daily consumption, or with colours indicative of relative healthiness. Nutritional labelling has been rolled-out in many forms, across many countries but there is currently no consensus as to the best way of applying this information to products to stimulate healthier food choices. This review explored whether nutritional labels persuade consumers to buy alternative types of food and included 28 articles. Findings from these 28 articles suggest that nutritional labelling specially indicating energy content may cause people to opt to buy foods with a lower energy content in restaurants. This result (only based on 3 studies) suggests that nutritional labelling could be rolled-out on menus in restaurants, but high-quality research is required. Higher-quality research is also needed to explore the impact of nutritional labelling in shops and vending machines.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nutritional labelling is advocated as a means to promote healthier food purchasing and consumption, including lower energy intake. Internationally, many different nutritional labelling schemes have been introduced. There is no consensus on whether such labelling is effective in promoting healthier behaviour. OBJECTIVES To assess the impact of nutritional labelling for food and non-alcoholic drinks on purchasing and consumption of healthier items. Our secondary objective was to explore possible effect moderators of nutritional labelling on purchasing and consumption. SEARCH METHODS We searched 13 electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to 26 April 2017. We also handsearched references and citations and sought unpublished studies through websites and trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA Eligible studies: were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs/Q-RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies, or interrupted time series (ITS) studies; compared a labelled product (with information on nutrients or energy) with the same product without a nutritional label; assessed objectively measured purchasing or consumption of foods or non-alcoholic drinks in real-world or laboratory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted study data. We applied the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. We pooled studies that evaluated similar interventions and outcomes using a random-effects meta-analysis, and we synthesised data from other studies in a narrative summary. MAIN RESULTS We included 28 studies, comprising 17 RCTs, 5 Q-RCTs and 6 ITS studies. Most (21/28) took place in the USA, and 19 took place in university settings, 14 of which mainly involved university students or staff. Most (20/28) studies assessed the impact of labelling on menus or menu boards, or nutritional labelling placed on, or adjacent to, a range of foods or drinks from which participants could choose. Eight studies provided participants with only one labelled food or drink option (in which labelling was present on a container or packaging, adjacent to the food or on a display board) and measured the amount consumed. The most frequently assessed labelling type was energy (i.e. calorie) information (12/28).Eleven studies assessed the impact of nutritional labelling on purchasing food or drink options in real-world settings, including purchases from vending machines (one cluster-RCT), grocery stores (one ITS), or restaurants, cafeterias or coffee shops (three RCTs, one Q-RCT and five ITS). Findings on vending machines and grocery stores were not interpretable, and were rated as very low quality. A meta-analysis of the three RCTs, all of which assessed energy labelling on menus in restaurants, demonstrated a statistically significant reduction of 47 kcal in energy purchased (MD -46.72 kcal, 95% CI -78.35, -15.10, N = 1877). Assuming an average meal of 600 kcal, energy labelling on menus would reduce energy purchased per meal by 7.8% (95% CI 2.5% to 13.1%). The quality of the evidence for these three studies was rated as low, so our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and may change with further studies. Of the remaining six studies, only two (both ITS studies involving energy labels on menus or menus boards in a coffee shop or cafeteria) were at low risk of bias, and their results support the meta-analysis. The results of the other four studies which were conducted in a restaurant, cafeterias (2 studies) or a coffee shop, were not clearly reported and were at high risk of bias.Seventeen studies assessed the impact of nutritional labels on consumption in artificial settings or scenarios (henceforth referred to as laboratory studies or settings). Of these, eight (all RCTs) assessed the effect of labels on menus or placed on a range of food options. A meta-analysis of these studies did not conclusively demonstrate a reduction in energy consumed during a meal (MD -50 kcal, 95% CI -104.41, 3.88, N = 1705). We rated the quality of the evidence as low, so our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and may change with further studies.Six laboratory studies (four RCTs and two Q-RCTs) assessed the impact of labelling a single food or drink option (such as chocolate, pasta or soft drinks) on energy consumed during a snack or meal. A meta-analysis of these studies did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in energy (kcal) consumed (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.27, N = 732). However, the confidence intervals were wide, suggesting uncertainty in the true effect size. We rated the quality of the evidence as low, so our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and may change with further studies.There was no evidence that nutritional labelling had the unintended harm of increasing energy purchased or consumed. Indirect evidence came from five laboratory studies that involved mislabelling single nutrient content (i.e. placing low energy or low fat labels on high-energy foods) during a snack or meal. A meta-analysis of these studies did not demonstrate a statistically significant increase in energy (kcal) consumed (SMD 0.19, 95% CI -0.14to 0.51, N = 718). The effect was small and the confidence intervals wide, suggesting uncertainty in the true effect size. We rated the quality of the evidence from these studies as very low, providing very little confidence in the effect estimate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Findings from a small body of low-quality evidence suggest that nutritional labelling comprising energy information on menus may reduce energy purchased in restaurants. The evidence assessing the impact on consumption of energy information on menus or on a range of food options in laboratory settings suggests a similar effect to that observed for purchasing, although the evidence is less definite and also of low quality.Accordingly, and in the absence of observed harms, we tentatively suggest that nutritional labelling on menus in restaurants could be used as part of a wider set of measures to tackle obesity. Additional high-quality research in real-world settings is needed to enable more certain conclusions.Further high-quality research is also needed to address the dearth of evidence from grocery stores and vending machines and to assess potential moderators of the intervention effect, including socioeconomic status.