Global, regional, and national consumption of animal-source foods between 1990 and 2018: findings from the Global Dietary Database

International audienceBackground:Diet is a major modifiable risk factor for human health and overall consumption patterns affect planetary health. We aimed to quantify global, regional, and national consumption levels of animal-source foods (ASF) to inform intervention, surveillance, and policy priorities.Methods:Individual-level dietary surveys across 185 countries conducted between 1990 and 2018 were identified, obtained, standardised, and assessed among children and adults, jointly stratified by age, sex, education level, and rural versus urban residence. We included 499 discrete surveys (91·2% nationally or subnationally representative) with data for ASF (unprocessed red meat, processed meat, eggs, seafood, milk, cheese, and yoghurt), comprising 3·8 million individuals from 134 countries representing 95·2% of the world population in 2018. We used Bayesian hierarchical models to account for differences in survey methods and representativeness, time trends, and input data and modelling uncertainty, with five-fold cross-validation.Findings:In 2018, mean global intake per person of unprocessed red meat was 51 g/day (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 48–54; region-specific range 7–114 g/day); 17 countries (23·9% of the world's population) had mean intakes of at least one serving (100 g) per day. Global mean intake of processed meat was 17 g/day (95% UI 15–21 g/day; region-specific range 3–54 g/day); seafood, 28 g/day (27–30 g/day; 12–44 g/day); eggs, 21 g/day (18–24 g/day; 6–35 g/day); milk 88 g/day (84–93 g/day; 45–185 g/day); cheese, 8 g/day (8–10 g/day; 1–34 g/day); and yoghurt, 20 g/day (17–23 g/day; 7–84 g/day). Mean national intakes were at least one serving per day for processed meat (≥50 g/day) in countries representing 6·9% of the global population; for cheese (≥42 g/day) in 2·3%; for eggs (≥55 g/day) in 0·7%; for milk (≥245 g/day) in 0·3%; for seafood (≥100 g/day) in 0·8%; and for yoghurt (≥245 g/day) in less than 0·1%. Among the 25 most populous countries in 2018, total ASF intake was highest in Russia (5·8 servings per day), Germany (3·8 servings per day), and the UK (3·7 servings per day), and lowest in Tanzania (0·9 servings per day) and India (0·7 servings per day). Global and regional intakes of ASF were generally similar by sex. Compared with children, adults generally consumed more unprocessed red meat, seafood and cheese, and less milk; energy-adjusted intakes of other ASF were more similar. Globally, ASF intakes (servings per week) were higher among more-educated versus less-educated adults, with greatest global differences for milk (0·79), eggs (0·47), unprocessed red meat (0·42), cheese (0·28), seafood (0·28), yoghurt (0·22), and processed meat (0·21). This was also true for urban compared to rural areas, with largest global differences (servings per week) for unprocessed red meat (0·47), milk (0·38), and eggs (0·20). Between 1990 and 2018, global intakes (servings per week) increased for unprocessed red meat (1·20), eggs (1·18), milk (0·63), processed meat (0·50), seafood (0·44), and cheese (0·14).Interpretation:Our estimates of ASF consumption identify populations with both lower and higher than optimal intakes. These estimates can inform the targeting of intervention, surveillance, and policy priorities relevant to both human and planetary health

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care