Periodontal disease, which includes gingivitis and periodontitis, is highly prevalent in adults and disease severity increases with age. The relationship between periodontal disease and oral cancer has been examined for several decades, but there is increasing interest in the link between periodontal disease and overall cancer risk, with systemic inflammation serving as the main focus for biological plausibility. Numerous case-control studies have addressed the role of oral health in head and neck cancer, and several cohort studies have examined associations with other types of cancers over the past decade. For this review, we included studies that were identified from either 11 published reviews on this topic or an updated literature search on PubMed (between 2011 and July 2016). A total of 50 studies from 46 publications were included in this review. Meta-analyses were conducted on cohort and case-control studies separately when at least 4 studies could be included to determine summary estimates of the risk of cancer in relation to 1) periodontal disease or 2) tooth number (a surrogate marker of periodontal disease) with adjustment for smoking. Existing data provide support for a positive association between periodontal disease and risk of oral, lung, and pancreatic cancers; however, additional prospective studies are needed to better inform on the strength of these associations and to determine whether other cancers are associated with periodontal disease. Future studies should include sufficiently large sample sizes, improved measurements for periodontal disease, and thorough adjustment for smoking and other risk factors.

IMPORTANCEAcutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established. OBJECTIVE To assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm 3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 .INTERVENTIONS Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication. RESULTSOn June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early terminationbecauseoflowerthananticipatedeventrates;atthattime,657symptomaticoutpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEV...

Background: Considerable attention has recently focused on dietary protein's role in the mature skeleton, prompted partly by an interest in nonpharmacologic approaches to maintain skeletal health in adult life. Objective: The aim was to conduct a systematic review and metaanalysis evaluating the effects of dietary protein intake alone and with calcium with or without vitamin D (Ca6D) on bone health measures in adults. Design: Searches across 5 databases were conducted through October 2016 including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies examining 1) the effects of "high versus low" protein intake or 2) dietary protein's synergistic effect with Ca6D intake on bone health outcomes. Two investigators independently conducted abstract and full-text screenings, data extractions, and risk of bias (ROB) assessments. Strength of evidence was rated by group consensus. Random-effects meta-analyses for outcomes with $4 RCTs were performed. Results: Sixteen RCTs and 20 prospective cohort studies were included in the systematic review. Overall ROB was medium. Moderate evidence suggested that higher protein intake may have a protective effect on lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) compared with lower protein intake (net percentage change: 0.52%; 95% CI: 0.06%, 0.97%, I2 : 0%; n = 5) but no effect on total hip (TH), femoral neck (FN), or total body BMD or bone biomarkers. Limited evidence did not support an effect of protein with Ca6D on LS BMD, TH BMD, or forearm fractures; there was insufficient evidence for FN BMD and overall fractures. Conclusions: Current evidence shows no adverse effects of higher protein intakes. Although there were positive trends on BMD at most bone sites, only the LS showed moderate evidence to support benefits of higher protein intake. Studies were heterogeneous, and confounding could not be excluded. High-quality, long-term studies are needed to clarify dietary protein's role in bone health. This trial was registered at www.crd.york.ac.uk as CRD42015017751.Am J Clin Nutr 2017;105:1528-43.

No abstract

Level III, case-control analytic study.

Cranberry ( spp.) has been advocated for treatment of urinary tract infection (UTI); however, its efficacy is controversial. Women have a 50% risk of UTI over their lifetime, and ∼20-30% experience a subsequent UTI recurrence. We conducted this meta-analysis to assess the effect of cranberry on the risk of UTI recurrence in otherwise healthy women. Literature published before January 2011 was obtained from 2 published systematic reviews, and we conducted updated searches in EMBASE and MEDLINE (through July 2017). We included randomized controlled trials that were conducted in generally healthy nonpregnant women aged ≥18 y with a history of UTI, compared cranberry intervention to a placebo or control, and reported the outcome as the number of participants experiencing a UTI. Two researchers conducted abstract and full-text screenings, data extractions, and risk of bias assessments independently, and discrepancies were resolved by group consensus. Meta-analyses were performed by using Stata SE software (version 13). We employed a fixed-effect model using the Mantel-Haenszel method to estimate the summary risk if the heterogeneity was low to moderate ( < 50%). Otherwise, we applied a random-effects model using the DerSimonian-Laird method. We identified 7 randomized controlled trials conducted in healthy women at risk of UTI ( = 1498 participants). Results of the meta-analysis showed that cranberry reduced the risk of UTI by 26% (pooled risk ratio: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.98; = 54%). Risk of bias indicated that 2 studies had high loss to follow-up or selective outcome reporting. Overall, the studies were relatively small, with only 2 having>300 participants. These results suggest that cranberry may be effective in preventing UTI recurrence in generally healthy women; however, larger high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings. This trial was registered at crd.york.ac.uk/prospero as CRD42015024439.

BackgroundAs aging populations increase across the globe, research on lifestyle factors that prevent cognitive decline and dementia is urgently needed. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to examine the effects of varying levels of milk intake alone or in combination with other dairy products on the outcomes of cognitive function and disorders in adults.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted across 3 databases (PUBMED, CINAHL, and EMBASE) from their inception through October 2017. Prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adults were included. Studies with follow-up durations of less than 4 weeks and studies including schizophrenic patients were excluded. Two independent investigators conducted abstract and full-text screenings, data extractions, and risk-of-bias (ROB) assessments using validated tools. Studies were synthesized qualitatively using a strength of evidence (SoE) rating tool. A random-effects model for meta-analysis was conducted when at least 3 unique studies reported sufficient quantitative data for the same outcome.ResultsA total of 1 RCT and 7 cohort studies were included. One medium-quality small RCT (n = 38 participants) showed that only spatial working memory was marginally better in the high dairy diet group compared to the low dairy diet group. Two of the 7 cohort studies were rated as having a high ROB, and only 1 cohort study was rated as having a low ROB. There were large methodological and clinical heterogeneities, such as the methods used to assess milk or dairy intake and the characteristics of the study populations. It was impossible to conduct a dose-response meta-analysis because the studies utilized different categories of exposures (e.g., different frequencies of milk consumption or the amount of dairy intake). Thus, the overall SoE was rated as insufficient regarding the associations between milk intake and cognitive decline, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease outcomes. Our meta-analysis of 3 cohort studies showed no significant association between milk intake and cognitive decline outcome (pooled adjusted risk ratio = 1.21; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.82; for highest vs. lowest intake) with large statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 64.1%).ConclusionsThe existing evidence (mostly observational) is too poor to draw a firm conclusion regarding the effect of milk or dairy intake on the risk of cognitive decline or disorders in adults.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12937-018-0387-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundProtein may have both beneficial and detrimental effects on bone health depending on a variety of factors, including protein source.ObjectiveThe aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effects of animal versus plant protein intake on bone mineral density (BMD), bone mineral content (BMC) and select bone biomarkers in healthy adults.MethodsSearches across five databases were conducted through 10/31/16 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies in healthy adults that examined the effects of animal versus plant protein intake on 1) total body (TB), total hip (TH), lumbar spine (LS) or femoral neck (FN) BMD or TB BMC for at least one year, or 2) select bone formation and resorption biomarkers for at least six months. Strength of evidence (SOE) was assessed and random effect meta-analyses were performed.ResultsSeven RCTs examining animal vs. isoflavone-rich soy (Soy+) protein intake in 633 healthy peri-menopausal (n = 1) and post-menopausal (n = 6) women were included. Overall risk of bias was medium. Limited SOE suggests no significant difference between Soy+ vs. animal protein on LS, TH, FN and TB BMD, TB BMC, and bone turnover markers BSAP and NTX. Meta-analysis results showed on average, the differences between Soy+ and animal protein groups were close to zero and not significant for BMD outcomes (LS: n = 4, pooled net % change: 0.24%, 95% CI: -0.80%, 1.28%; TB: n = 3, -0.24%, 95% CI: -0.81%, 0.33%; FN: n = 3, 0.13%, 95% CI: -0.94%, 1.21%). All meta-analyses had no statistical heterogeneity.ConclusionsThese results do not support soy protein consumption as more advantageous than animal protein, or vice versa. Future studies are needed examining the effects of different protein sources in different populations on BMD, BMC, and fracture.