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

Mechanisms of toxic smoke inhalation and burn injury: Role of neutral endopeptidase and vascular leakage in mice

The effects of neutral endopeptidase (NEP) in acute inflammation in the lung were studied using a newly developed murine model of smoke and burn (SB) injury. C57BL/6 mice were pretreated with an i.v. dose of a specific NEP antagonist CGS-24592 (10 mg/Kg) 1 h prior to SB injury (n = 5–8/group). Mice were anesthetized with i.p. ketamine/xylazine, intubated, and exposed to cooled cotton smoke (2 × 30 s). After s.c. injection of 1 ml 0.9% saline, each received a 40% total body surface area (TBSA) flame burn. Buprenorphene (2 mg/kg) was given i.p. and resuscitated by saline. Evans Blue dye (EB) was injected i.v. 15 min before sacrifice. Lung wet/dry weight ratio was measured. After vascular perfusion, lungs were analyzed for their levels of EB dye and myeloperoxidase (MPO). In mice pretreated with CGS-24592 followed by SB injury the EB levels were significantly higher (61%, p = 0.043) than those with SB injury alone. There was a significant increase (144%, p = 0.035) in EB dye in animals with SB injury alone as compared to shams. In mice pretreated with CGS-24592 prior to SB injury wet/dry weight ratios were significantly (27%, p = 0.042) higher compared to animals with SB injury alone. CGS-24592 pretreatment also caused a significant increase in MPO (29%, p = 0.026) as compared to mice with SB injury alone. In conclusion the current study indicates that specific NEP inhibitor CGS 24592 exacerbates the SB-induced lung injury and inflammation in mice

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake