| 1. |
- Narula, N., et al.
(författare)
-
Association of ultra-processed food intake with risk of inflammatory bowel disease: prospective cohort study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Bmj-British Medical Journal. - : BMJ. - 1756-1833. ; 374
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE To evaluate the relation between intake of ultra processed food and risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). DESIGN Prospective cohort study. SETTING 21 low, middle, and high income countries across seven geographical regions (Europe and North America, South America, Africa, Middle East, south Asia, South East Asia, and China). PARTICIPANTS 116 087 adults aged 35-70 years with at least one cycle of follow-up and complete baseline food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) data (country specific validated FFQs were used to document baseline dietary intake). Participants were followed prospectively at least every three years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The main outcome was development of IBD, including Crohn & rsquo;s disease or ulcerative colitis. Associations between ultra-processed food intake and risk of IBD were assessed using Cox proportional hazard multivariable models. Results are presented as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS Participants were enrolled in the study between 2003 and 2016. During the median follow-up of 9.7 years (interquartile range 8.9-11.2 years), 467 participants developed incident IBD (90 with Crohn & rsquo;s disease and 377 with ulcerative colitis). After adjustment for potential confounding factors, higher intake of ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of incident IBD (hazard ratio 1.82, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.72 for >= 5 servings/day and 1.67, 1.18 to 2.37 for 1-4 servings/day compared with <1 serving/day, P=0.006 for trend). Different subgroups of ultra-processed food, including soft drinks, refined sweetened foods, salty snacks, and processed meat, each were associated with higher hazard ratios for IBD. Results were consistent for Crohn & rsquo;s disease and ulcerative colitis with low heterogeneity. Intakes of white meat, red meat, dairy, starch, and fruit, vegetables, and legumes were not associated with incident IBD. CONCLUSIONS Higher intake of ultra-processed food was positively associated with risk of IBD. Further studies are needed to identify the contributory factors within ultra processed foods.
|
|
| 2. |
- Moayyedi, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Evidence-based and mechanistic insights into exclusion diets for IBS
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1759-5045 .- 1759-5053. ; 17, s. 406-413
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Exclusion diets are popular in the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This Review outlines the mechanisms by which food might lead to symptoms in IBS and discusses different approaches to how exclusion diets can be evaluated in randomized controlled trials. Exclusion diets are becoming increasingly popular in the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Several mechanisms exist by which food items might cause gastrointestinal symptoms, such as direct osmotic effects of food in the gut lumen, changes to the gut microbiota and immune activation. These effects have been demonstrated in animal models and in human studies, particularly in the case of gluten-free diets and diets low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAPs). Indeed, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that gluten-free diets and low-FODMAP diets improve IBS symptoms, and guidelines recommend the latter approach for treating symptoms in some patients with IBS. Designing such RCTs is challenging as participants need to eat so an 'inert' placebo is not an option. Blinding is also an issue with these studies; in the future, new exclusion diets should not advertise what the diet consists of until it is proved to reduce symptoms. In this Review, we outline the advantages and disadvantages of each choice of control group and emphasize the importance of collecting mechanistic data (regarding direct effects of food on the gut lumen, changes in gut microbiota and intestinal inflammation) as well as symptom data in RCTs of exclusion diets in IBS.
|
|
| 3. |
- Flook, N. W., et al.
(författare)
-
Acid-Suppressive Therapy With Esomeprazole for Relief of Unexplained Chest Pain in Primary Care: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
- 2013
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Gastroenterology. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0002-9270. ; 108:1, s. 56-64
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: High-quality data regarding the efficacy of acid-suppressive treatment for unexplained chest pain are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of esomeprazole in primary-care treatment of patients with unexplained chest pain stratified for frequency of reflux/regurgitation symptoms. METHODS: Patients with a ≥2-week history of unexplained chest pain (unrelated to gastroesophageal reflux) who had at least moderate pain on ≥2 of the last 7 days were stratified by heartburn/regurgitation frequency (≤1 day/week (stratum 1) vs. ≥2 days/week (stratum 2)) and randomized to 4 weeks of double-blind treatment with twice-daily esomeprazole 40mg or placebo. Chest pain relief during the last 7 days of treatment (≤1 day with minimal symptoms assessed daily using a 7-point scale) was analyzed by stratum in keeping with the predetermined analysis plan. RESULTS: Overall, 599 patients (esomeprazole: 297, placebo: 302) were randomized. In stratum 1, more esomeprazole than placebo recipients achieved chest pain relief (38.7% vs. 25.5%; P=0.018); no between-treatment difference was observed in stratum 2 (27.2% vs. 24.2%; P=0.54). However, esomeprazole was superior to placebo in a post-hoc analysis of the whole study population (combined strata; 33.1% vs. 24.9%; P=0.035). CONCLUSIONS: A 4-week course of high-dose esomeprazole provided statistically significant relief of unexplained chest pain in primary-care patients who experienced infrequent or no heartburn/regurgitation, but there was no such significant reduction in patients with more frequent reflux symptoms.
|
|
