Search

BackgroundNutrition affects both physical and mental health but evidence is mixed regarding potential associations between anxiety and diet, particularly dairy consumption. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) of dairy consumption and/or various dietary patterns and risk of anxiety.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted in PubMed and Embase. All study designs except case reports, small case series, and SLRs were considered for inclusion. Reference lists of previously published SLRs were reviewed for any relevant additional studies. Studies of populations without dairy sensitivities exploring the association between dietary patterns and/or dairy consumption and anxiety published through May 2022 were identified using predefined eligibility criteria. Study quality was determined using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist.ResultsFor this SLR, 132 studies were included; 80 were cross-sectional. Studies examined different dietary patterns (e.g., Mediterranean, gluten-free) and anxiety using various anxiety scales, with 19 studies specifically reporting on whole dairy consumption and anxiety. Dairy consumption was significantly associated with a lower risk of anxiety in 7 studies, while the remaining 12 studies showed no significant associations. Evidence was mixed for the association between various dietary patterns and anxiety, but more studies observed a lower risk of anxiety with greater adherence to "healthy" diets (e.g., Mediterranean, diet quality score, vegetarian/vegan) than a higher risk. Notable heterogeneity in study populations, time periods, geographical locations, dietary assessment methods, and anxiety scales was observed.ConclusionsThe results of this SLR suggest a potential link between diet including diary consumption and anxiety, but future studies, especially with longitudinal designs that measure diet and anxiety at several timepoints and comprehensively adjust for confounders, are needed to fully understand the relationship between diet and anxiety.

Abstract: Cold agglutinin disease (CAD), a rare disease and subtype of autoimmune hemolytic anemia, is characterized by autoantibodies that bind to red blood cells at low temperatures. There is no established standard of care for CAD treatment and CAD cohort studies are limited by the rarity of the condition. The objectives of this study are to present the longitudinal experience of a CAD cohort from the United States, with a focus on anemia severity, use of medications and transfusions, and health care resource utilization. The Stanford Translational Research Integrated Database Environment database was used to retrospectively identify CAD patients diagnosed and treated at Stanford Health Care from 2000 to 2016. Twenty-nine patients were included in this analysis. There were 7.1 severe anemia events per patient-year observed over the follow-up time. For CAD patients treated at Stanford, there was a mean of 3.5 therapies per patient. Transfusions were given in at least 65% of the cohort with a mean of 11 transfusions per patient-year. For CAD-related health care use in the first year after disease onset, 93% used outpatient services with a median of 26 outpatient visits per patient. The data presented here likely represent the minimum number of events for these patients during this timeframe, as this single-center experience does not capture care from other providers. This longitudinal study of CAD patients demonstrates the severity of anemia and relapsing nature of the disease, even after administration of multiple therapies and transfusions.

Human milk oligosaccharides are important components of breast milk. We evaluated feeding tolerance of the human milk oligosaccharide 2′-fucosyllactose (2′FL) in a 100% whey, partially hydrolyzed infant formula with the probiotic Bifidobacterium animalis ssp lactis strain Bb12 ( B lactis ; Test) as compared with the same formula without 2′FL (Control) in a randomized controlled trial of healthy infants enrolled at 2 weeks of age (±5 days). After 6 weeks of feeding the assigned formula, the primary outcome of tolerance was assessed using the Infant Gastrointestinal Symptom Questionnaire. Stooling, vomiting, spit-up, crying, and fussing were compared between groups. Seventy-nine infants were enrolled and 63 completed the study per protocol (30 Test, 33 Control). Infant Gastrointestinal Symptom Questionnaire scores were similar between groups (Test 20.9 ± 4.8, Control 20.7 ± 4.3, P = .82). Partially hydrolyzed infant formula with 2′FL and B lactis is tolerated well, as confirmed by a validated multi-symptom index.

Background. For infants who are partially or exclusively fed infant formula, many options exist with compositional differences between formulas making choices difficult for caregivers and healthcare professionals. The protein in routine infant formulas differs by the source, fraction of cow’s milk protein used, and degree of hydrolysis. All commercially available regulated infant formulas support growth and development, but different stool patterns have been observed based on formula composition. A pooled analysis of seven clinical trials was conducted to examine growth, stool consistency, and stool frequency of infants fed an intact cow’s milk-based formula (CMF) or a partially hydrolyzed whey formula (PHF-W) from a single manufacturer. Methods. Individual subject data from seven infant formula growth studies (3 CMF, 4 PHF-W) were pooled and analyzed. All studies included healthy, full-term, formula-fed infants enrolled at 14 days of age with outcomes assessed over 4 months. Gains in weight and length to 4 months were analyzed using linear regression accounting for clustering within study. Outcomes of caregiver-reported stool consistency and frequency were analyzed using a longitudinal multinomial model. Results. Data from 511 infants were included (197 CMF, 314 PHF-W). There were no differences in weight gain between groups. There was no difference in length gain in girls fed PHF-W while boys fed PHF-W had a significant difference of +0.016 cm/month compared to boys fed CMF. Infants fed PHF-W had a significantly higher probability of soft and lower probability of hard stools as compared to infants fed CMF at each time point (p

The objective of this study was to conduct an indirect treatment comparison between cabazitaxel, abiraterone and enzalutamide to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel relative to comparators in the treatment of patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer who progress on docetaxel-based therapies.A systematic literature review was conducted to inform the network meta-analysis of cabazitaxel, abiraterone and enzalutamide. Due to a lack of head-to-head trials, studies with a comparator arm of best supportive care were included in the analysis. Overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events were compared within both Bayesian and Frequentist frameworks. The ratios for survival outcomes were estimated using hazard ratios (HR), and the ratios for adverse events between groups were estimated using odds ratios (ORs); uncertainty was reported as 95% confidence (Frequentist) and credible (Baysesian) Intervals.Three of thirteen trials identified for abstraction were relevant for analyses. Median overall survival was not statistically significantly different for abiraterone (HR = 1.04; 95% CI = 0.83-1.28) or enzalutamide (HR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.69-1.11) when compared to cabazitaxel in the Bayesian analysis. Anaemia (OR = 3.71; 95% CI = 1.01-10.44), diarrhoea (OR = 16.60; 95% CI = 1.41-75.31) and haematuria (OR = 3.88; 95% CI = 1.03-10.09) were more likely to occur in the cabazitaxel group than the abiraterone group, while pyrexia risk was higher in cabazitaxel compared to enzalutamide (OR = 36.23; 95% CI = 1.14-206.40). Frequentist analyses produced similar results.The scarcity of clinical studies and lack of a common comparator limited analyses. The adverse event results must be interpreted with caution as many were based on small numbers. The results from this analysis indicate comparable survival outcomes and adverse event profiles. As these pivotal studies may not reflect the contemporary treatment landscape and patient profiles, additional research, including head-to-head clinical trials and real world observational studies, should be conducted to further elucidate the beneficial effects of these therapies.