Stroke risk and NSAIDs: A systematic review of observational studies

Aims: To perform a quantitative systematic review of observational studies on the risk of stroke associated with the use of individual NSAIDs. Methods and results: Searches were conducted using the Medline database within PubMed (1990-2008). Observational cohort or case-control studies were eligible if reported on the risk of cardiovascular events associated with individual NSAIDs versus the nonuse of NSAIDs. We found 3193 articles, in which 75 were eligible for review and abstraction. Of the 75 articles, 6 reported relative risk (RR) of stroke. Data were abstracted into a database using a standardized entry form. Two authors assessed study quality, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The pooled RR of all subtypes of incident stroke was increased with the current use of rofecoxib (RR=1.64, 95% CI=1.15-2.33) and diclofenac (RR=1.27, 95% CI=1.08-1.48). The pooled estimates for naproxen, ibuprofen, and celecoxib were close to unity. The risk of ischemic stroke was also increased with rofecoxib (RR=1.82, 95% CI=1.09-3.04) and diclofenac (RR=1.20, 95% CI=0.99-1.45). Data were inadequate to estimate the pooled RR by dose and duration, for other individual NSAIDs or nonischemic stroke subtypes. Conclusion: This meta-analysis supports an increased risk of ischemic stroke with the current use of rofecoxib and diclofenac. Additional studies are required to evaluate most individual NSAIDS, the effect of dose and duration, and the subtypes of stroke

Hormonal Risk Factors for Ovarian Cancer in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Women

Ovarian cancer is most frequently diagnosed in postmenopausal women; however, the strongest risk predictors, pregnancy and oral contraceptive use, occur in most women in their twenties and thirties. Relatively few studies have examined how reproductive risk factors vary between pre- and postmenopausal ovarian cancer. The authors used data from a population-based, case-control study of ovarian cancer (896 cases, 967 controls) conducted in North Carolina from 1999 to 2006. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by using unconditional logistic regression. Inverse associations with ovarian cancer were observed with duration of oral contraceptive use, later age at last use, and more recent use among premenopausal women; no significant associations were found for postmenopausal women. Analyses limited to oral contraceptive users showed that duration was a more significant predictor of risk than was timing of use. Parity was inversely associated with premenopausal but not postmenopausal ovarian cancer. Later age at pregnancy was associated with reduced risk for both pre- and postmenopausal women. Analyses among parous women showed that pregnancy timing was a stronger risk predictor than number of pregnancies. Findings suggest that associations between ovarian cancer and reproductive characteristics vary by menopausal status. Additional research is needed to further elucidate risk factors for postmenopausal disease

Folic acid supplementation before and during pregnancy in the Newborn Epigenetics STudy (NEST)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Folic acid (FA) added to foods during fortification is 70-85% bioavailable compared to 50% of folate occurring naturally in foods. Thus, if FA supplements also are taken during pregnancy, both mother and fetus can be exposed to FA exceeding the Institute of Medicine's recommended tolerable upper limit (TUL) of 1,000 micrograms per day (μg/d) for adult pregnant women. The primary objective is to estimate the proportion of women taking folic acid (FA) doses exceeding the TUL before and during pregnancy, and to identify correlates of high FA use.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>During 2005-2008, pre-pregnancy and pregnancy-related data on dietary supplementation were obtained by interviewing 539 pregnant women enrolled at two obstetrics-care facilities in Durham County, North Carolina.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Before pregnancy, 51% of women reported FA supplementation and 66% reported this supplementation during pregnancy. Before pregnancy, 11.9% (95% CI = 9.2%-14.6%) of women reported supplementation with FA doses above the TUL of 1,000 μg/day, and a similar proportion reported this intake prenatally. Before pregnancy, Caucasian women were more likely to take FA doses above the TUL (OR = 2.99; 95% = 1.28-7.00), compared to African American women, while women with chronic conditions were less likely to take FA doses above the TUL (OR = 0.48; 95%CI = 0.21-0.97). Compared to African American women, Caucasian women were also more likely to report FA intake in doses exceeding the TUL during pregnancy (OR = 5.09; 95%CI = 2.07-12.49).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Fifty-one percent of women reported some FA intake before and 66% during pregnancy, respectively, and more than one in ten women took FA supplements in doses that exceeded the TUL. Caucasian women were more likely to report high FA intake. A study is ongoing to identify possible genetic and non-genotoxic effects of these high doses.</p

Cardiovascular risk associated with the use of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas: meta-analysis of published observational studies

BACKGROUND: The results of observational studies evaluating and comparing the cardiovascular safety of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas are inconsistent.To conduct and evaluate heterogeneity in a meta-analysis of observational studies on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes using non-insulin blood glucose–lowering drugs (NIBGLD). METHODS: We systematically identified and reviewed studies evaluating NIBGLD in patients with type 2 diabetes indexed in Medline, Embase, or the Cochrane Library that met prespecified criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed with the RTI item bank. Results were combined using fixed- and random-effects models, and the Higgins I(2) statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses by study quality were conducted. RESULTS: The summary relative risk (sRR) (95 % CI) of AMI for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.13 (1.04–1.24) [I(2) = 55 %]. In the sensitivity analysis, heterogeneity was reduced [I(2) = 16 %]. The sRR (95 % CI) of stroke for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.18 (1.02–1.36) [I(2) = 42 %]. There was strong evidence of heterogeneity related to study quality in the comparisons of rosiglitazone versus metformin and rosiglitazone versus sulfonylureas (I(2) ≥ 70 %). The sRR (95 % CI) of AMI for sulfonylurea versus metformin was 1.24 (1.14–1.34) [I(2) = 41 %] and for pioglitazone versus metformin was 1.02 (0.75–1.38) [I(2) = 17 %]. Sensitivity analyses decreased heterogeneity in most comparisons. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: Sulfonylureas increased the risk of AMI by 24 % compared with metformin; an imprecise point estimate indicated no difference in risk of AMI when comparing pioglitazone with metformin. The presence of heterogeneity precluded any conclusions on the other comparisons. The quality assessment was valuable in identifying methodological problems in the individual studies and for analysing potential sources of heterogeneity. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0187-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Polymorphism in the IL18 Gene and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in Non-Hispanic White Women

Over 22,000 cases of ovarian cancer were diagnosed in 2007 in the United States but only a fraction of them can be attributed to mutations in highly penetrant genes such as BRCA1. To determine whether low penetrance genetic variants contribute to ovarian cancer risk, we genotyped 1,536 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in several candidate gene pathways in 848 epithelial ovarian cancer cases and 798 controls in the North Carolina Ovarian Cancer Study (NCO) using a customized Illumina array. The inflammation gene interleukin-18 (IL18) showed the strongest evidence for association with epithelial ovarian cancer in a gene-by-gene analysis (p=0.002) with a <25% chance of being a false positive finding (q-value=0.240). Using a multivariate model search algorithm over eleven IL18 tagging SNPs, we found the association was best modeled by rs1834481. Further, this SNP uniquely tagged a significantly associated IL18 haplotype and there was an increased risk of epithelial ovarian cancer per rs1834481 allele (OR=1.24, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.45). In a replication stage, twelve independent studies from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) genotyped rs1834481 in an additional 5,877 cases and 7,791 controls. The fixed effects estimate per rs1834481 allele was null (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.94, 1.05) when data from the twelve OCAC studies were combined. The effect estimate remained unchanged with the addition of the initial NCO data. This analysis demonstrates the importance of consortia, like the OCAC, in either confirming or refuting the validity of putative findings in studies with smaller sample sizes

Nutrition Labeling of Meat and Poultry Products: Consumers' Opinions (Final Report)

Excerpts: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for inspecting all meat and poultry products shipped in interstate commerce and assuring consumers that meat and poultry products are wholesome, not adulterated, and are properly marked, labeled, and packaged. To develop and implement nutrition labeling regulations, FSIS needs a better understanding of consumers' use of nutrition labels on meat and poultry products. This report summarizes the principal methodology and findings of a study conducted by Research Triangle Institute (RTI). The objective of the study was to obtain information on consumer attitudes, viewpoints, and perceptions of nutrition information on food products and to assess the implications for potential nutrition information policies. The following six questions represent the main topical areas: 1. What is the relative importance of nutrition content and information? 2. How frequently do consumers look at nutrition labels while grocery shopping? 3. Why do consumers read nutrition labels? 4. What inferences do consumers draw from the presence or absence of labels? 5. How do consumers feel about nutrition information being provided at different stages of preparation? 6. Do consumers use/understand uniform descriptors