Enteral nutrition (EN) is the preferred route of nutrition support for patients with critical illness undergoing intensive care. Experts in the field caution against using fiber during EN because of perceived adverse patient outcomes; however, a comprehensive assessment of this topic is not evident to date. In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, we searched four databases from inception to April 20, 2020, for studies on adverse events or health outcomes associated with using EN formulations containing fiber in hospitalized adults with critical illness. Nineteen articles were included. Random‐effects meta‐analysis models showed significantly lower diarrhea scores for fiber groups compared with nonfiber groups (pooled mean difference: −2.78; 95% CI, −4.10 to −1.47) but mixed results for risk of diarrhea between groups, depending on measures used for diarrhea (Hart and Dobb scale, pooled risk ratio [RR]: 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45–1.02; other diarrhea scales, pooled RR: 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20–0.89). Models showed 39% lower risk of gastrointestinal (GI) complications overall for fiber compared with nonfiber groups (pooled RR: 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47–0.79) but no group differences for individual GI complications, mortality, and intensive care unit or hospital length of stay. Analyses stratified by soluble‐ or mixed‐fiber interventions reduced heterogeneity in models but showed identical conclusions. EN formulas with fiber may help reduce incidence and severity of diarrhea and GI complications overall in critically ill patients, without increased risk of other adverse events. Bias among specific GI measures indicates more high‐quality studies are needed to verify these conclusions.

(1) Background: Chronic inflammation and insulin resistance are associated with cardiometabolic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Therapeutic water-only fasting and whole-plant-food refeeding was previously shown to improve markers of cardiometabolic risk and may be an effective preventative treatment but sustained outcomes are unknown. We conducted a single-arm, open-label, observational study with a six-week post-treatment follow-up visit to assess the effects of water-only fasting and refeeding on markers of cardiometabolic risk. (2) Methods: Patients who had voluntarily elected and were approved to complete a water-only fast were recruited from a single-center residential medical facility. The primary endpoint was to describe changes to Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) scores between the end-of-refeed visit and the six-week follow-up visit. Additionally, we report on changes in anthropometric measures, blood lipids, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and fatty liver index (FLI). Observations were made at baseline, end-of-fast (EOF), end-of-refeed (EOR), and six-week follow-up (FU). (3) Results: The study enrolled 40 overweight/obese non-diabetic participants, of which 33 completed the full study protocol. Median fasting, refeeding, and follow-up lengths were 14, 6, and 45 days, respectively. At the FU visit, body weight (BW), body mass index (BMI), abdominal circumference (AC), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), hsCRP, and FLI were significantly decreased from baseline. Triglycerides (TG) and HOMA-IR scores, which had increased at EOR, returned to baseline values at the FU visit. (4) Conclusion: Water-only fasting and whole-plant-food refeeding demonstrate potential for long-term improvements in markers of cardiovascular risk including BW, BMI, AC, SBP, DBP, blood lipids, FLI, and hsCRP.

Background A systematic review was commissioned to support an international expert group charged to update the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)/World Health Organisation (WHO)’s vitamin D intake recommendations for children aged 0–4 years. Materials and methods Multiple electronic databases were searched to capture studies published from database inception to the 2 nd week of June 2020 according to key questions formulated by the FAO/WHO. Relevant studies were summarised and synthesised by key questions and by health outcomes using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results The 146 included studies examined the effects of different vitamin D intake levels on a variety of health outcomes (e.g. infectious disease, growth, neurodevelopment, rickets, and bone mineral density), and on outcomes for setting vitamin D upper limits (e.g. hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, and nephrocalcinosis). For most outcomes, the strength of evidence was low or very low . Evidence was rated moderate for the effect of daily vitamin D supplementation on raising serum 25(OH)D concentrations, and a random-effects meta-regression analysis of 28 randomised controlled trials (mostly in infants 0–12 months) showed that each 100 IU/d increase in vitamin D supplementation was associated with an average of 1.92 (95% CI 0.28, 3.56) nmol/L increase in achieved 25-hydroxy-vitaminn D (25[OH]D) concentration ( n = 53 intervention arms; p = .022) with large residual heterogeneity ( I 2 = 99.39%). Evidence was very low on two of the upper limit outcomes – hypercalcemia and hypercalciuria. Conclusions The evidence report provided the expert group with a foundation and core set of data to begin their work to set vitamin D nutrient reference values. To move the field forward, future studies should use standardised 25(OH)D assay measurements and should examine the relationship between long-term vitamin D status and health outcomes. Key Messages Results of a large complex systematic review suggest the current totality of evidence from trials and prospective observational studies do not reach sufficient certainty level to support a causal relationship between vitamin D intake and asthma, wheeze, eczema, infectious diseases, or rickets (most trials reported no rickets) in generally healthy infants and young children. In this systematic review, the only body of evidence that reached a moderate level of certainty was regarding the effect of daily vitamin D supplementation (vitamin D 3 or D ...

One hundred percent orange juice (OJ) has no added sugar, naturally contains flavonoids and ascorbic acid, and can modulate the body's oxidative and inflammatory systems. This scoping review, systematic review, and meta-analysis investigated associations between 100% OJ and markers of inflammation or oxidation in healthy adults and those at risk for chronic diseases. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and scoping review extension. Literature in English was searched to July 2021 in Embase and 4 Ovid platform databases. Clinical and observational studies of any duration were eligible. Cochrane Collaboration tools were used to assess the risk of bias in controlled trials. Strength of evidence was determined using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The scoping review presents a qualitative synthesis of evidence in summary and results tables. Twenty-one interventional studies (16 controlled trials and 5 before-after studies) conducted in 307 healthy and 327 at-risk participants were included. Six common markers [C-reactive protein (CRP) or high-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP), IL-6, TNF-α, malondialdehyde (MDA), oxidized LDL (oxLDL), and antioxidant capacity] measured across 16 studies were systematically reviewed, and results were synthesized narratively. Random-effects model meta-analyses were conducted on 10 studies reporting hs-CRP, IL-6, and/or MDA. After consuming 100% OJ, healthy and at-risk participants showed significantly lower IL-6 concentrations (pooled net difference: −1.51 pg/mL; 95% CI: −2.31, −0.70) and lower, but nonsignificant, hs-CRP (pooled net change: −0.58 mg/L; 95% CI: −1.22, 0.05) and MDA (crossover trials pooled net difference: −0.06 μmol/L; 95% CI: −0.19, 0.08). Findings suggest that 100% OJ may reduce inflammation, but results should be interpreted with caution due to moderate risk of bias, very low strength of evidence, and the low number of subjects. This study was registered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) as CRD42021235438.

No abstract