No abstract

The association between body size, weight change and depression has not been systematically summarised, especially for individuals who are underweight.To conduct a systematic review and a meta-analysis to examine the association between indices of body size, weight change and depression.A total of 183 studies were selected. Fully adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) were extracted. A total of 76 studies contributed to data synthesis with a random-effect model, and subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of potential moderators.In cohort studies, underweight at baseline increased the risk of subsequent depression (OR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24). Overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m) showed no statistically significant relationship with depression overall; however, the subgroup analyses found different results according to gender (men: OR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.97, women: OR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.07-1.25). In cross-sectional designs, obesity with BMI >40 kg/m showed a greater pooled odds ratio than obesity with BMI >30 kg/mBoth underweight and obesity increase the risk of depression. The association between overweight and depression differs by gender.

There has been a growing interest in the relationship between sedative-hypnotics use and the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia (AD) risk. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of AD associated with the use of sedative-hypnotics. A retrospective cohort study was conducted with randomly selected 5% samples from ≥50 years old beneficiaries of National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) of Korea from January 2002 to December 2015. The exposure to sedative-hypnotics was defined when prescribed over 30 defined daily dose (DDD) after January 2004 and it was categorized by prescribed dosage, types and half-lives of benzodiazepines. Time-dependent Cox regression model with a lag period of 5-years was used to evaluate the association between use of sedative-hypnotics and the risk of subsequent AD. Sensitivity analysis was performed for restricting sedative-hypnotics only when prescribed with insomnia. A total of 268,170 subjects were identified and subjects exposed to sedative-hypnotics showed a higher risk of AD (HR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.72–1.86) than those who were not. There was an increased risk of AD among subjects exposed to benzodiazepines or zolpidem (HR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.67–1.82) and antidepressants or low-dose antipsychotics (HR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.42–1.87). The risk of AD was increased regardless of dose of sedative-hypnotics and half-life among benzodiazepines, especially in exposure to more than 360 DDD of sedative-hypnotics (HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.60–1.99) and the long-acting benzodiazepine (HR:1.77; 95% CI: 1.65–1.89).

Multiple studies have suggested that ω-3 fatty acid intake may have a protective effect on cancer risk; however, its true association with cancer risk remains controversial. We performed an umbrella review of meta-analyses to summarize and evaluate the evidence for the association between ω-3 fatty acid intake and cancer outcomes. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to December 1, 2018. We included meta-analyses of observational studies that examined associations between intake of fish or ω-3 fatty acid and cancer risk (gastrointestinal, liver, breast, gynecologic, prostate, brain, lung, and skin) and determined the level of evidence of associations. In addition, we appraised the quality of the evidence of significant meta-analyses by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We initially screened 598 articles, and 15 articles, including 57 meta-analyses, were eligible. Among 57 meta-analyses, 15 reported statistically significant results. We found that 12 meta-analyses showed weak evidence of an association between ω-3 fatty acid intake and risk of the following types of cancer: liver cancer (n = 4 of 6), breast cancer (n = 3 of 14), prostate cancer (n = 3 of 11), and brain tumor (n = 2 of 2). In the other 3 meta-analyses, studies of endometrial cancer and skin cancer, there were no assessable data for determining the evidence levels. No meta-analysis showed convincing, highly suggestive, or suggestive evidence of an association. In the sensitivity analysis of meta-analyses by study design, we found weak associations between ω-3 fatty acid intake and breast cancer risk in cohort studies, but no statistically significant association in case-control studies. However, the opposite results were found in case of brain tumor risk. Although ω-3 fatty acids have been studied in several meta-analyses with regard to a wide range of cancer outcomes, only weak associations were identified in some cancer types, with several limitations. Considering the nonsignificant or weak evidence level, clinicians and researchers should cautiously interpret reported associations between ω-3 fatty acid consumption and cancer risks.