Caffeine is commonly used to improve athletic performance across a variety of sports. Previously, the CYP1A2 gene has been shown to modify the effects of caffeine on endurance performance. The effect of caffeine on strength and power activities is unclear and may differ depending on an individual’s CYP1A2 genotype. A randomized controlled trial was used to determine whether caffeine impacts strength and power, determined by the handgrip and vertical jump tests, respectively, and whether CYP1A2 genotype modifies any effects. Competitive male athletes (age = 25 ± 4 years) completed vertical jump (n = 97), and handgrip tests (n = 102) under three conditions: 0 (placebo), 2, or 4 mg of caffeine per kilogram of body mass (in milligrams per kilogram). CYP1A2 (rs762551) genotype was determined from saliva samples. No differences between caffeine doses and placebo were observed for strength or power; however, significant Caffeine × Gene interactions were observed for all exercise tests. Individuals with the CC genotype experienced a 12.8% decrease in handgrip strength with 4 mg/kg of caffeine compared with placebo (53 ± 11 kg vs. 61 ± 17 kg, p = .02). No differences were observed in those with the AC or AA genotypes. Despite observing a significant Caffeine × Gene interaction for vertical jump performance, no differences were observed between caffeine doses and placebo for all genotypes. In summary, caffeine (4 mg/kg) worsened handgrip strength performance in those with the CC genotype, but no differences were observed in those with the AC or AA genotypes. Athletes may want to consider their CYP1A2 genotype prior to using caffeine to improve muscle strength.

ObjectivesConduct a systematic review of existing frameworks to understand the for-profit private sector’s roles in non-communicable disease (NCD) control and management. Control includes population-level control measures that prevent NCDs and mitigate the magnitude of the NCD pandemic, and management includes treatment and management of NCDs. The for-profit private sector was defined as any private entities that make profit from their activities (ie, pharmaceutical companies, unhealthy commodity industries, distinct from not-for-profit trusts or charitable organisations).DesignA systematic review and inductive thematic synthesis was performed. Comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Business Source Premier and Proquest/ABI Inform were conducted on 15 January 2021. Grey literature searches were conducted on 2 February 2021 using the websites of 24 relevant organisations. Searches were filtered to only include articles published from the year 2000 onwards, in English. Articles that included frameworks, models or theories and the for-profit private sector’s role in NCD control and management were included. Two reviewers performed the screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Quality was assessed using the tool developed by Hawkeret alfor qualitative studies.SettingThe for-profit private sector.ResultsThere were 2148 articles initially identified. Following removal of duplicates, 1383 articles remained, and 174 articles underwent full-text screening. Thirty-one articles were included and used to develop a framework including six themes that outlined the roles that the for-profit private sector plays in NCD management and control. The themes that emerged included healthcare provision, innovation, knowledge educator, investment and financing, public–private partnerships, and governance and policy.ConclusionThis study provides an updated insight on literature that explores the role of the private sector in controlling and monitoring NCDs. The findings suggest that the private sector could contribute, through various functions, to effectively manage and control NCDs globally.

Purpose Conduct six systematic reviews investigating for-profit private sector roles in NCD prevention and management in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) through our a priori framework’s pillars. Methods Six systematic reviews and thematic syntheses were performed between March-August 2021, Six databases, websites of relevant organizations, and references lists of included studies were comprehensively searched. Studies published in English from 2000 onwards involving the pillar of interest, for-profit private sector, NCD prevention/management, and LMIC context were included. Results were synthesized using an inductive thematic synthesis approach. Results Ultimately, 25 articles were included in the PPP review, 33 in Governance and Policy, 22 in Healthcare Provision, 15 in Innovation, 14 in Knowledge Educator, and 42 in Investment and Finance. The following themes emerged: PPPs (coordination; financial resources; provision; health promotion; capacity building; innovation; policy); Governance/Policy (lobbying; industry perception; regulation); Healthcare Provision (diagnosis/treatment; infrastructure; availability/accessibility/affordability); Innovation (product innovation; process innovation; marketing innovation; research; innovation dissemination); Knowledge Educator (training; health promotion; industry framework/guideline formation); Investment and Finance (treatment cost; regulation; private insurance; subsidization; direct investment; collaborative financing; innovative financing; research). Conclusion These findings will be instrumental for LMICs considering private sector engagement. Potential conflicts of interest must be considered when implementing private sector involvement.