A large evidence-based review on the effects of a moderate consumption of beer on human health has been conducted by an international panel of experts who reached a full consensus on the present document. Low-moderate (up to 1 drink per day in women, up to 2 in men), non-bingeing beer consumption, reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease. This effect is similar to that of wine, at comparable alcohol amounts. Epidemiological studies suggest that moderate consumption of either beer or wine may confer greater cardiovascular protection than spirits. Although specific data on beer are not conclusive, observational studies seem to indicate that low-moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a reduced risk of developing neurodegenerative disease. There is no evidence that beer drinking is different from other types of alcoholic beverages in respect to risk for some cancers. Evidence consistently suggests a J-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption (including beer) and all-cause mortality, with lower risk for moderate alcohol consumers than for abstainers or heavy drinkers. Unless they are at high risk for alcohol-related cancers or alcohol dependency, there is no reason to discourage healthy adults who are already regular light-moderate beer consumers from continuing. Consumption of beer, at any dosage, is not recommended for children, adolescents, pregnant women, individuals at risk to develop alcoholism, those with cardiomyopathy, cardiac arrhythmias, depression, liver and pancreatic diseases, or anyone engaged in actions that require concentration, skill or coordination. In conclusion, although heavy and excessive beer consumption exerts deleterious effects on the human body, with increased disease risks on many organs and is associated to significant social problems such as addiction, accidents, violence and crime, data reported in this document show evidence for no harm of moderate beer consumption for major chronic conditions and some benefit against cardiovascular disease.

BackgroundIt is challenging to manage data collection as planned and creation of opportunities to adapt during the course of enrolment may be needed. This paper aims to summarize the different sampling strategies adopted in the second wave of Observation of Cardiovascular Risk Factors (ORISCAV-LUX, 2016–17), with a focus on population coverage and sample representativeness.MethodsData from the first nationwide cross-sectional, population-based ORISCAV-LUX survey, 2007–08 and from the newly complementary sample recruited via different pathways, nine years later were analysed. First, we compare the socio-demographic characteristics and health profiles between baseline participants and non-participants to the second wave. Then, we describe the distribution of subjects across different strategy-specific samples and performed a comparison of the overall ORISCAV-LUX2 sample to the national population according to stratification criteria.ResultsFor the baseline sample (1209 subjects), the participants (660) were younger than the non-participants (549), with a significant difference in average ages (44 vs 45.8 years; P = 0.019). There was a significant difference in terms of education level (P < 0.0001), 218 (33%) participants having university qualification vs. 95 (18%) non-participants. The participants seemed having better health perception (p < 0.0001); 455 (70.3%) self-reported good or very good health perception compared to 312 (58.2%) non-participants. The prevalence of obesity (P < 0.0001), hypertension (P < 0.0001), diabetes (P = 0.007), and mean values of related biomarkers were significantly higher among the non-participants. The overall sample (1558 participants) was mainly composed of randomly selected subjects, including 660 from the baseline sample and 455 from other health examination survey sample and 269 from civil registry sample (constituting in total 88.8%), against only 174 volunteers (11.2%), with significantly different characteristics and health status. The ORISCAV-LUX2 sample was representative of national population for geographical district, but not for sex and age; the younger (25–34 years) and older (65–79 years) being underrepresented, whereas middle-aged adults being over-represented, with significant sex-specific difference (p < 0.0001).ConclusionThis study represents a careful first-stage analysis of the ORISCAV-LUX2 sample, based on available information on participants and non-participants. The ORISCAV-LUX datasets represents a relevant tool for epidemiological research and a basis for health monitoring and evidence-based prevention of cardiometabolic risk in Luxembourg.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0669-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Purpose Diet quality is a critical modifiable factor related to health, including the risk of cardiometabolic complications. Rather than assessing the intake of individual food items, it is more meaningful to examine overall dietary patterns. This study investigated the adherence to common dietary indices and their association with serum/metabolic parameters of disease risk. Methods Dietary intakes of the general adult population (n = 1404, 25–79 years) were assessed by a validated food-frequency questionnaire (174 items). The French ANSES-Ciqual food composition database was used to compute nutrient intakes. Seven indicators were calculated to investigate participants’ diet quality: the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI), Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Score (DASH-S), Mediterranean Diet Score (MDS), Diet Quality Index-International (DQI-I), Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII), Dietary Antioxidant Index (DAI), and Naturally Nutrient-Rich Score (NNRS). Various serum/metabolic parameters were used in the validity and association analyses, including markers of inflammation, blood glucose, and blood lipid status. Results Following linear regression models adjusted for confounders, the DASH-S was significantly associated with most metabolic parameters (14, e.g., inversely with blood pressure, triglycerides, urinary sodium, uric acid, and positively with serum vitamin D), followed by the DQI-I (13, e.g., total cholesterol, apo-A/B, uric acid, and blood pressure) and the AHEI (11, e.g., apo-A, uric acid, serum vitamin D, diastolic blood pressure and vascular age). Conclusion Food-group-based indices, including DASH-S, DQI-I, and AHEI, were good predictors for serum/metabolic parameters, while nutrient-based indices, such as the DAI or NNRS, were less related to biological markers and, thus, less suitable to reflect diet quality in a general population.

BackgroundMeasuring the true incidence of injury or medically attended injury is challenging. Population surveys, despite problems with recall and selection bias, remain the only source of information for injury incidence calculation in many countries. Emergency department (ED) registry based data provide an alternative source.The aim of this study is to compare the yearly incidence of hospital treated Home and Leisure Injuries (HLI), and Road Traffic Injuries (RTI) estimated by survey-based and register-based methods and combine information from both sources in to a comprehensive injury burden pyramide.MethodsData from Luxemburg’s European Health Examination Survey (EHES-LUX), European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) and ED surveillance system Injury Data Base (IDB) collected in 2013, were used. EHES-LUX data on 1529 residents 25–64 years old, were collected between February 2013–January 2015. EHIS data on 4004 other residents aged 15+ years old, were collected between February and December 2014. Participants reported last year’s injuries at home, leisure and traffic and treatment received. Two-sided exact binomial tests were used to compare incidences from registry with the incidences of each survey by age group and prevention domain. Data from surveys and register were combined to build an RTI and HLI burden pyramide for the 25–64 years old. This project was part of the European Union project BRIDGE-Health (BRidging Information and Data Generation for Evidence-based Health Policy and Research).ResultsAmong 25–64 years old the incidence of hospital treated injuries per thousand population was 60.1 (95% CI: 59.2–60.9) according to IDB, 62.1 (95% CI: 50.6–75.4) according to EHES-LUX and 53.2 (95% CI: 45.0–62.4) according to EHIS. The incidence of hospital admissions was 3.7 (95% CI: 3.5–4.0) per thousand population from IDB-Luxembourg, 12.4 (95% CI: 7.5–19.3) from EHES-LUX and 18.0 (95% CI: 13.3–23.8) from EHIS. For 15+ years-old incidence of hospital treated HLI was 62.8 (95% CI: 62.1–63.5) per thousand population according to IDB whereas the corresponding EHIS estimate was lower at 46.9 (95% CI: 40.4–54.0). About half of HLI and RTI of the 25–64 years old were treated in hospital.ConclusionThe overall incidence estimate of hospital treated injuries from both methods does not differ for the 25–64 years old. Surveys overestimate the number of hospital admissions, probably due to memory bias. For people aged 15+ years, the survey estimate is lower than the register estimate for hospital treated HLI injuries, probably due to selection and recall biases. ED based registry data is to be preferred as single source for estimating the incidence of hospital treated injuries in all age groups.