Red and processed meat intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study
Hu B, He X, Sun H, Hu Y, Li F, Sun Y, Sun J, Feng L
Clinical nutrition ESPEN · 11 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiación no declaradaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Eventos clínicos como enfermedad o muerte
- Consumo medido con
- No se indica
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2024-02-19 · Clin Nutr ESPEN · vol. 60 · págs. 289–297
- Editorial
- Elsevier BV
- Citado
- 16 citas · más que el 97% de estudios similares · 6.1× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 52 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista híbrida) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Áreas de investigación
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Meat and Animal Product Quality · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Palabras clave
- Mendelian randomization, Medicine, Randomization, Mendelian inheritance, Disease, Red meat, Internal medicine, Randomized controlled trial, Genetics, Pathology, Gene, Biology
- MeSH
- animals, cattle, humans, cardiovascular diseases, reproducibility of results, meat, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, genome-wide association study, mendelian randomization analysis
8 autores
- Bing Hu🇨🇳Zhongshan People's Hospital
- Xin He🇨🇳Zhongshan People's Hospital
- Hao Sun🇨🇳Zhongshan People's Hospital
- Yongyi Hu🇨🇳Zhongshan People's Hospital
- Fei Li🇨🇳Zhongshan People's Hospital
- Yanxiang Sun🇨🇳Zhongshan People's Hospital
- Jie Sun🇨🇳Zhongshan People's Hospital
- Feng Li🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaZhongshan People's Hospital
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background & aims
Previous observational studies have yielded inconsistent findings regarding associations between red/processed meat intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Some studies have suggested positive relationships, while others have demonstrated no significant associations. However, causal effects remain uncertain. This 2023 Mendelianrandomization (MR) study investigated the causal relationship between red and processed meat (porkmeat, mutton meat, beef meat)intake and CVD risk by analyzing summary data from the UK Biobank (exposure), CARDIoGRAMplusC4D (coronary artery disease [CAD]), MEGASTROKE (stroke), Nielsen et al. (atrial fibrillation [AF]), HERMES (heart failure [HF]), and FinnGen (cardiovascular outcomes) public databases.
Methods
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of red meat (pork, beef, and mutton) and processed meat were sourced from the United Kingdom (UK) Biobank. GWAS data on CVD for this study were obtained from the Gene and FinnGen consortia. The primary method employed for the two-sample MR analysis was inverse variance weighting (IVW). Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the reliability and consistency of the results.
Results
Genetically predicted red and processed meat consumption did not demonstrate a causal association with any CVD outcomes when employing the IVW method. For processed meat intake, the odds ratios (ORs) (95% confidence intervals CIs) in large consortia were as follows: 0.88 (0.56-1.39) for CAD, 0.91 (0.65-1.27) for AF, 0.84 (0.58-1.21) for HF, and 1.00 (0.75-1.05) for stroke. In FinnGen, the ORs were as follows: 1.15 (0.83-1.59) for CAD, 1.25 (0.75-2.07) for AF, 1.09 (0.73-1.64) for HF, and 1.27 (0.85-1.91) for stroke. For beef intake, the ORs (95% CIs) in large consortia were as follows: 0.70 (0.28-1.73) for CAD, 0.85 (0.49-1.49) for AF, 0.80 (0.35-1.83) for HF, and 1.29 (0.85-1.95) for stroke. In FinnGen, the ORs were as follows: 2.01 (0.75-5.39) for CAD, 1.83 (0.60-5.56) for AF, 0.80 (0.30-2.13) for HF, and 1.30 (0.62-2.73) for stroke. For pork intake, the ORs (95% CIs) in large consortia were as follows: 1.25 (0.37-4.22) for CAD, 1.26 (0.73-2.15) for AF, 1.71 (0.86-3.39) for HF, and 1.15 (0.63-2.11) for stroke. In FinnGen, the ORs were as follows: 1.12 (0.43-2.88) for CAD, 0.39 (0.08-1.83) for AF, 0.62 (0.20-1.88) for HF, and 0.60 (0.21-1.65) for stroke. For mutton intake, the ORs (95% CIs) in large consortia were as follows: 0.84 (0.48-1.44) for CAD, 0.84 (0.56-1.26) for AF, 1.04 (0.65-1.67) for HF, and 1.06 (0.77-1.45) for stroke. In FinnGen, the ORs were as follows: 1.20 (0.65-2.21) for CAD, 0.92 (0.44-1.92) for AF, 0.74 (0.34-1.58) for HF, and 0.75 (0.45-1.24) for stroke. The results remained robust and consistent in both the meta-analysis and supplementary MR analysis.
Conclusions
This MR study demonstrated no significant causal relationships between red/processed meat intake and the risk of the four CVD outcomes examined. Further investigation is warranted to confirm these findings.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY-NC-ND).
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.