Milk and dairy products: good or bad for human health? An assessment of the totality of scientific evidence

Background: There is scepticism about health effects of dairy products in the public, which is reflected in an increasing intake of plant-based drinks, for example, from soy, rice, almond, or oat. Objective: This review aimed to assess the scientific evidence mainly from meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised controlled trials, on dairy intake and risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cancer, and all-cause mortality. Results: The most recent evidence suggested that intake of milk and dairy products was associated with reduced risk of childhood obesity. In adults, intake of dairy products was shown to improve body composition and facilitate weight loss during energy restriction. In addition, intake of milk and dairy products was associated with a neutral or reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly stroke. Furthermore, the evidence suggested a beneficial effect of milk and dairy intake on bone mineral density but no association with risk of bone fracture. Among cancers, milk and dairy intake was inversely associated with colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, gastric cancer, and breast cancer, and not associated with risk of pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, or lung cancer,while the evidence for prostate cancer risk was inconsistent.Finally,consumption of milk and dairy products was not associated with all-cause mortality. Calcium-fortified plant-based drinks have been included as an alternative to dairy products in the nutrition recommendations in several countries. However, nutritionally, cow’s milk and plant-based drinks are completely different foods,and an evidence-based conclusion on the health value of the plant-based drinks requires more studies in humans. Conclusion: The totality of available scientific evidence supports that intake of milk and dairy products contribute to meet nutrient recommendations, and may protect against the most prevalent chronic diseases, whereas very few adverse effects have been reported

Treatment strategies for new onset atrial fibrillation in patients treated on an intensive care unit: a systematic scoping review

Background New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in patients treated on an intensive care unit (ICU) is common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We undertook a systematic scoping review to summarise comparative evidence to inform NOAF management for patients admitted to ICU. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, OpenGrey, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials register, additional WHO ICTRP trial databases, and NIHR Clinical Trials Gateway in March 2019. We included studies evaluating treatment or prevention strategies for NOAF or acute anticoagulation in general medical, surgical or mixed adult ICUs. We extracted study details, population characteristics, intervention and comparator(s), methods addressing confounding, results, and recommendations for future research onto study-specific forms. Results Of 3,651 citations, 42 articles were eligible: 25 primary studies, 12 review articles and 5 surveys/opinion papers. Definitions of NOAF varied between NOAF lasting 30 s to NOAF lasting > 24 h. Only one comparative study investigated effects of anticoagulation. Evidence from small RCTs suggests calcium channel blockers (CCBs) result in slower rhythm control than beta blockers (1 study), and more cardiovascular instability than amiodarone (1 study). Evidence from 4 non-randomised studies suggests beta blocker and amiodarone therapy may be equivalent in respect to rhythm control. Beta blockers may be associated with improved survival compared to amiodarone, CCBs, and digoxin, though supporting evidence is subject to confounding. Currently, the limited evidence does not support therapeutic anticoagulation during ICU admission. Conclusions From the limited evidence available beta blockers or amiodarone may be superior to CCBs as first line therapy in undifferentiated patients in ICU. The little evidence available does not support therapeutic anticoagulation for NOAF whilst patients are critically ill. Consensus definitions for NOAF, rate and rhythm control are needed

Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a conservative approach to oxygen therapy for invasively ventilated adults in intensive care: Protocol for the UK-ROX trial

Background: In the United Kingdom, around 184,000 adults are admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) each year with over 30% receiving mechanical ventilation. Oxygen is the commonest therapeutic intervention provided to these patients but it is unclear how much oxygen should be administered for the best clinical outcomes. Methods: The UK-ROX trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of conservative oxygen therapy (the minimum oxygen concentration required to maintain an oxygen saturation of 90% ± 2%) versus usual oxygen therapy in critically ill adults receiving supplemental oxygen when invasively mechanically ventilated in ICUs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The trial will recruit 16,500 patients from approximately 100 UK adult ICUs. Using a deferred consent model, enrolled participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to conservative or usual oxygen therapy until ICU discharge or 90 days after randomisation. Objectives: The primary clinical outcome is all cause mortality at 90 days following randomisation. Discussion: The UK-ROX trial has received ethical approval from the South Central – Oxford C Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/SC/0423) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (Reference: 22/CAG/0154). The trial commenced in May 2021 and, at the time of publication, 95 sites had opened to recruitment. </jats:sec

Fur seals at Macquarie Island: post-sealing colonisation, trends in abundance and hybridisation of three species

© Springer-Verlag 2009Commercial sealers exterminated the original fur seal population at Macquarie Island in the early 1800s. The first breeding record since the sealing era was not reported until March 1955. Three species of fur seal now occur at Macquarie Island, the Antarctic (Arctocephalus gazella), subantarctic (A. tropicalis) and New Zealand (A. forsteri) fur seal. Census data from 54 breeding seasons in the period 1954–2007 were used to estimate population status and growth for each species. Between the 1950s and 1970s, annual increases in pup production for the species aggregate were low. Between 1986 and 2007, pup production of Antarctic fur seals increased by about 8.8% per year and subantarctic fur seals by 6.8% per year. The New Zealand fur seal, although the most numerous fur seal species on Macquarie Island, has yet to establish a breeding population, due to the absence of reproductively mature females. Hybridisation among species is significant, but appears to be declining. The slow establishment and growth of fur seal populations on Macquarie Island appears to have been affected by its distance from major population centres and hence low immigration rates, asynchronous colonisation times of males and females of each species, and extensive hybridisation.Simon David Goldsworthy, Jane McKenzie, Brad Page, Melanie L. Lancaster, Peter D. Shaughnessy, Louise P. Wynen, Susan A. Robinson, Kristian J. Peters, Alastair M. M. Baylis and Rebecca R. McIntos