Cholesterol-raising diterpenes in types of coffee commonly consumed in Singapore, Indonesia and India and associations with blood lipids: A survey and cross sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To measure the content of cholesterol-raising diterpenes in coffee sold at the retailer level in Singapore, Indonesia and India and to determine the relationship of coffee consumption with lipid levels in a population-based study in Singapore.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Survey and cross-sectional study in local coffee shops in Singapore, Indonesia and India to measure the diterpene content in coffee, and a population-based study in Singapore to examine the relationship of coffee consumption and blood lipid levels. Interviews and coffee samples (n = 27) were collected from coffee shops in Singapore, Indonesia and India. In addition, 3000 men and women who were Chinese, Malay, and Indian residents of Singapore participated in a cross-sectional study.</p> <p>Results and Discussion</p> <p>The traditional 'sock' method of coffee preparation used in Singapore resulted in cafestol concentrations comparable to European paper drip filtered coffee (mean 0.09 ± SD 0.064 mg/cup). This amount would result in negligible predicted increases in serum cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations. Similarly low amounts of cafestol were found in Indian 'filter' coffee that used a metal mesh filter (0.05 ± 0.05 mg/cup). Coffee samples from Indonesia using the 'sock' method (0.85 ± 0.41 mg/cup) or a metal mesh filter (0.98 mg/cup) contained higher amounts of cafestol comparable to espresso coffee. Unfiltered coffee from Indonesia contained an amount of cafestol (4.43 mg/cup) similar to Scandinavian boiled, Turkish and French press coffee with substantial predicted increases in serum cholesterol (0.33 mmol/l) and triglycerides (0.20 mmol/l) concentrations for consumption of 5 cups per day. In the Singaporean population, higher coffee consumption was not substantially associated with serum lipid concentrations after adjustment for potential confounders [LDL-cholesterol: 3.07 (95% confidence interval 2.97-3.18) for <1 cup/week versus 3.12 (2.99-3.26) for ≥ 3 cups/day; p trend 0.12].</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Based on the low levels of diterpenes found in traditionally prepared coffee consumed in Singapore and India, coffee consumption in these countries does not appear to be a risk factor for elevation of serum cholesterol, whereas samples tested from Indonesia showed mixed results depending on the type of preparation method used.</p

Comparative quantification of health risks: Conceptual framework and methodological issues

Reliable and comparable analysis of risks to health is key for preventing disease and injury. Causal attribution of morbidity and mortality to risk factors has traditionally been conducted in the context of methodological traditions of individual risk factors, often in a limited number of settings, restricting comparability. In this paper, we discuss the conceptual and methodological issues for quantifying the population health effects of individual or groups of risk factors in various levels of causality using knowledge from different scientific disciplines. The issues include: comparing the burden of disease due to the observed exposure distribution in a population with the burden from a hypothetical distribution or series of distributions, rather than a single reference level such as non-exposed; considering the multiple stages in the causal network of interactions among risk factor(s) and disease outcome to allow making inferences about some combinations of risk factors for which epidemiological studies have not been conducted, including the joint effects of multiple risk factors; calculating the health loss due to risk factor(s) as a time-indexed "stream" of disease burden due to a time-indexed "stream" of exposure, including consideration of discounting; and the sources of uncertainty

The Blood Pressure "Uncertainty Range" – a pragmatic approach to overcome current diagnostic uncertainties (II)

A tremendous amount of scientific evidence regarding the physiology and physiopathology of high blood pressure combined with a sophisticated therapeutic arsenal is at the disposal of the medical community to counteract the overall public health burden of hypertension. Ample evidence has also been gathered from a multitude of large-scale randomized trials indicating the beneficial effects of current treatment strategies in terms of reduced hypertension-related morbidity and mortality. In spite of these impressive advances and, deeply disappointingly from a public health perspective, the real picture of hypertension management is overshadowed by widespread diagnostic inaccuracies (underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis) as well as by treatment failures generated by undertreatment, overtreatment, and misuse of medications. The scientific, medical and patient communities as well as decision-makers worldwide are striving for greatest possible health gains from available resources. A seemingly well-crystallised reasoning is that comprehensive strategic approaches must not only target hypertension as a pathological entity, but rather, take into account the wider environment in which hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease carrying a great deal of our inheritance, and its interplay in the constellation of other, well-known, modifiable risk factors, i.e., attention is to be switched from one's "blood pressure level" to one's absolute cardiovascular risk and its determinants. Likewise, a risk/benefit assessment in each individual case is required in order to achieve best possible results. Nevertheless, it is of paramount importance to insure generalizability of ABPM use in clinical practice with the aim of improving the accuracy of a first diagnosis for both individual treatment and clinical research purposes. Widespread adoption of the method requires quick adjustment of current guidelines, development of appropriate technology infrastructure and training of staff (i.e., education, decision support, and information systems for practitioners and patients). Progress can be achieved in a few years, or in the next 25 years