-
Nutrients Aug 2020The use of dietary supplements for weight loss has gained significant momentum. Polyglucosamine, a chitosan derivative, is a dietary supplement increasingly used for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The use of dietary supplements for weight loss has gained significant momentum. Polyglucosamine, a chitosan derivative, is a dietary supplement increasingly used for weight loss. In this meta-analysis, we systematically summarized and quantified the key findings of four randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials examining the effects of polyglucosamine supplementation and caloric restriction, and physical activity on body weight, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference in subjects with overweight and obesity. The control group was set with a physical activity from 6-7 MET-h/week activity and up to 21 MET-h/week activity with caloric restriction. Compliance in the latter trials was reported via a follow-up questionnaire with the individual participants. The analysis included 399 subjects followed for a period ranging from 12 weeks to one year. Subjects' age ranged from 21-75 years, BMI from 26-45 kg/m, and all were white European or Caucasian in ethnicity. The meta-analyzed mean differences for random effects showed that polyglucosamine supplementation improves weight loss by -1.78 kg [-2.78, -0.79], BMI by -1.52 kg/m [-3.58, 0.54], and improves waist circumference reduction by -1.45 cm [-2.77, -0.12]. In conclusion, the use of polyglucosamine supplementation in conjunction with lifestyle behavioral therapies can be effective for weight reduction. Further studies are needed to examine the long-term effects of polyglucosamine supplementation on weight loss and other metabolic parameters.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Obesity Agents; Body Mass Index; Caloric Restriction; Dietary Supplements; Exercise; Female; Glucosamine; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Obesity; Overweight; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Weight Loss; Young Adult
PubMed: 32784736
DOI: 10.3390/nu12082365 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Feb 2021The influence of diet on the gut microbiota is an emerging research area with significant impact on human health and disease. However, the effects of beef, the most...
The influence of diet on the gut microbiota is an emerging research area with significant impact on human health and disease. However, the effects of beef, the most consumed red meat in the United States, on gut microbial profile are not well studied. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols, the objective of this systematic review was to conduct a rigorous and thorough review of the current scientific literature regarding the effects of beef protein and the resulting bioactivity of beef protein and amino acids on the gut microbiota, with the goal of identifying gaps in the literature and guiding future research priorities. Utilizing MEDLINE Complete, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases, we conducted searches including terms and combinations of the following: animal protein, amino acid, beef, bioactive compounds, diet, health, microbiome, peptide, processed beef, and protein. We identified 131 articles, from which 15 were included in our review. The effects of beef on mouse and rat models were mostly consistent for the bacterial phylum level. Short-term (1-4-wk) beef intakes had little to no effect on microbial profiles in humans. Most studies utilized high beef feeding (240-380 g/d), and no study examined recommended amounts of protein [∼3.71 oz/d (105 g/d) meats, poultry, and eggs, or ∼26 oz/week (737 g/wk) from these food sources] according to US dietary guidelines. Additionally, the majority of animal and human studies with adverse findings examined the impact of beef in the context of a diet high in fat or sugar. In conclusion, an extensive gap exists in the literature regarding beef and the microbiota. More studies are necessary to elucidate the role of the microbiota following the consumption of beef, especially in interaction with other dietary compounds, and how beef preparation, processing, and cooking methods differentially influence the biological effects of beef on human health.
Topics: Animals; Cattle; Diet; Eggs; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Meat; Mice; Prevotella; Rats
PubMed: 32761179
DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmaa085 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Sep 2020There is considerable interest in dietary and other approaches to maintaining blood glucose concentrations within the normal range and minimizing exposure to...
There is considerable interest in dietary and other approaches to maintaining blood glucose concentrations within the normal range and minimizing exposure to postprandial hyperglycemic excursions. The accepted marker to evaluate the sustained maintenance of normal blood glucose concentrations is glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). However, although this is used in clinical practice to monitor glycemic control in patients with diabetes, it has a number of drawbacks as a marker of efficacy of dietary interventions that might beneficially affect glycemic control in people without diabetes. Other markers that reflect shorter-term glycemic exposures have been studied and proposed, but consensus on the use and relevance of these markers is lacking. We have carried out a systematic search for studies that have tested the responsiveness of 6 possible alternatives to HbA1c as markers of sustained variation in glycemic exposures and thus their potential applicability for use in dietary intervention trials in subjects without diabetes: 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG), dicarbonyl stress, fructosamine, glycated albumin (GA), advanced glycated end products (AGEs), and metabolomic profiles. The results suggest that GA may be the most promising for this purpose, but values may be confounded by effects of fat mass. 1,5-AG and fructosamine are probably not sensitive enough to the range of variation in glycemic exposures observed in healthy individuals. Use of measures based on dicarbonyls, AGEs, or metabolomic profiles would require further research into possible specific molecular species of interest. At present, none of the markers considered here is sufficiently validated and sensitive for routine use in substantiating the effects of sustained variation in dietary glycemic exposures in people without diabetes.
Topics: Biomarkers; Blood Glucose; Deoxyglucose; Diabetes Mellitus; Fructosamine; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans
PubMed: 32449931
DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmaa058 -
Bone & Joint Research Mar 2020Metabolic profiling is a top-down method of analysis looking at metabolites, which are the intermediate or end products of various cellular pathways. Our primary... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Metabolic profiling is a top-down method of analysis looking at metabolites, which are the intermediate or end products of various cellular pathways. Our primary objective was to perform a systematic review of the published literature to identify metabolites in human synovial fluid (HSF), which have been categorized by metabolic profiling techniques. A secondary objective was to identify any metabolites that may represent potential biomarkers of orthopaedic disease processes.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines using the MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases. Studies included were case series, case control series, and cohort studies looking specifically at HSF.
RESULTS
The primary analysis, which pooled the results from 17 published studies and four meeting abstracts, identified over 200 metabolites. Seven of these studies (six published studies, one meeting abstract) had asymptomatic control groups and collectively suggested 26 putative biomarkers in osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthropathies, and trauma. These can broadly be categorized into amino acids plus related metabolites, fatty acids, ketones, and sugars.
CONCLUSION
The role of metabolic profiling in orthopaedics is fast evolving with many metabolites already identified in a variety of pathologies. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution due to the presence of multiple confounding factors in many of the studies. Future research should include largescale epidemiological metabolic profiling studies incorporating various confounding factors with appropriate statistical analysis to account for multiple testing of the data. 2020;9(3):108-119.
PubMed: 32435463
DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.93.BJR-2019-0167.R1 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Feb 2020Risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) to individual patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD; defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Risk of Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis in Patients With Stage 4 or 5 Chronic Kidney Disease Receiving a Group II Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agent: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
Risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) to individual patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD; defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2) who receive a group II gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) is not well understood or summarized in the literature.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the pooled risk of NSF in patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD receiving a group II GBCA.
DATA SOURCES
A health sciences informationist searched the Ovid (MEDLINE and MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citation, and Daily and Versions), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Open Grey databases from inception to January 29, 2019, yielding 2700 citations.
STUDY SELECTION
Citations were screened for inclusion in a multistep process. Agreement for final cohort inclusion was determined by 2 blinded screeners using Cohen κ. Inclusion criteria consisted of stage 4 or 5 CKD with or without dialysis, administration of an unconfounded American College of Radiology classification group II GBCA (gadobenate dimeglumine, gadobutrol, gadoterate meglumine, or gadoteridol), and incident NSF as an outcome. Conference abstracts, retracted manuscripts, narrative reviews, editorials, case reports, and manuscripts not reporting total group II GBCA administrations were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction was performed for all studies by a single investigator, including publication details, study design and time frame, patient characteristics, group II GBCA(s) administered, total exposures for patients with stage 4 or stage 5 CKD, total cases of unconfounded NSF, reason for GBCA administration, follow-up duration, loss to follow-up, basis for NSF screening, and diagnosis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Pooled incidence of NSF and the associated upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI (risk estimate) for the pooled data and each of the 4 group II GBCAs.
RESULTS
Sixteen unique studies with 4931 patients were included (κ = 0.68) in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled incidence of NSF was 0 of 4931 (0%; upper bound of 95% CI, 0.07%). The upper bound varied owing to different sample sizes for gadobenate dimeglumine (0 of 3167; upper bound of 95% CI, 0.12%), gadoterate meglumine (0 of 1204; upper bound of 95% CI, 0.31%), gadobutrol (0 of 330; upper bound of 95% CI, 1.11%), and gadoteridol (0 of 230; upper bound of 95% CI, 1.59%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study's findings suggest that the risk of NSF from group II GBCA administration in stage 4 or 5 CKD is likely less than 0.07%. The potential diagnostic harms of withholding group II GBCA for indicated examinations may outweigh the risk of NSF in this population.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO identifier: CRD42019123284.
Topics: Contraindications, Drug; Contrast Media; Gadolinium; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Heterocyclic Compounds; Humans; Meglumine; Nephrogenic Fibrosing Dermopathy; Organometallic Compounds; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Risk; Severity of Illness Index; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 31816007
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5284