Dataset Information

Energy Drinks and Their Adverse Health Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Energy drinks are the fastest growing product in the beverage industry. However, there is concern regarding potential for adverse effects with use.

Objective

To evaluate the reported adverse effects of energy drink consumption.

Data sources

The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched for relevant studies from inception to November 2019, and pertinent data were abstracted.

Study selection

Only clinical studies reporting adverse events after energy drink consumption were included.

Study design

Systematic review.

Level of evidence

Level 4.

Data extraction

Data regarding sample size characteristics, energy drink characteristics, comparators, and all adverse events were extracted in duplicate and recorded.

Results

A total of 32 studies and 96,549 individuals were included. Frequently reported adverse events in the pediatric population were insomnia (35.4%), stress (35.4%), and depressive mood (23.1%). Frequently reported adverse events in the adult population were insomnia (24.7%), jitteriness/restlessness/shaking hands (29.8%), and gastrointestinal upset (21.6%). Alcohol mixed with energy drinks significantly reduced the likelihood of sedation effects but increased the likelihood of stimulatory effects. Energy drink consumption significantly increased the odds of insomnia (OR, 5.02; 95% CI, 1.72-14.63) and jitteriness/activeness (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.28-9.67) compared with the control group.

Conclusion

The authors recommend that individuals avoid frequent energy drink consumption (5-7 energy drinks/week) and avoid co-consumption with alcohol; increased regulatory standards should be placed in the sale of energy drinks, particularly with regard to the pediatric population.

SUBMITTER: Nadeem IM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8083152 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is substantial evidence that mortality increases in low temperatures. Less is known about the role of prolonged cold periods denoted as cold spells.We conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence on the adverse health effects of cold spells in varying climates.Four databases (Ovid Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched for all years and languages available. "Cold spell" was defined as an event below a temperature threshold lasting for a minimum duration of 2 days. Of 1,527 identified articles, 26 satisfied our eligibility criteria for the systematic review, and 9 were eligible for meta-analyses. The articles were grouped by the three main study questions into Overall-effect Group, Added-effect Group, and Temperature-change-effect Group.Based on random-effects models in the meta-analyses, cold spells were associated with increased mortality from all or all nonaccidental causes (summary rate ratio = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.17 based on 9 estimates from five studies), cardiovascular diseases (1.11; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.19; 12 estimates from eight studies), and respiratory diseases (1.21; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.51; 8 estimates from four studies). Estimated associations were stronger for people ? 65 years of age (1.06; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.12) than for people 0-64 years of age (1.01; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.03). Study-specific effect estimates from a limited number of studies suggested an increased morbidity related to cold spells, but it was not possible to quantitatively summarize the evidence.Cold spells are associated with increased mortality rates in populations around the world. The body of evidence suggests that cold spells also have other adverse health effects. There was substantial heterogeneity among the studies, which should be taken into account in the interpretation of the results.Ryti NR, Guo Y, Jaakkola JJ. 2016. Global association of cold spells and adverse health effects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 124:12-22; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408104.

Project description:BackgroundCaffeine containing energy drinks (EDs) are heavily consumed, particularly among young adults. The number of reports of caffeine intoxication from caffeinated EDs and problems related to caffeine dependence and withdrawal is increasing. The objective was to assess the knowledge and perceived beneficial effects of EDs consumers, to assess consumption patterns and determine the adverse effects experienced by different EDs consumer groups residing in Saudi Arabia.MethodsAn observational cross-sectional study with data from a randomly selected Saudi population was conducted during the period of January 15th, 2015, to April 15th, 2015, using a pre-tested 43-item questionnaire. The data were obtained and collected using interview questionnaires. Sociodemographic characteristics and data on EDs consumption patterns, the level of awareness among study subjects, and the purported benefits and reported adverse effects of EDs were collected. Frequency, percentage, and arithmetic means were calculated using Chi-square and ANOVA tests, and data with p?<?0.05 were considered significant.ResultsOf the 816 individuals invited to participate in the study, 783 participants responded and completed interviews, response rate was 96%. Consumers attributed the popularity of EDs to massive advertising media (46.7%) and their stimulating and invigorating effects (37.5%). EDs are consumed by subjects for their effects on fatigue reduction (64.6%), increased alertness and focus (75.8%), and assistance during long driving trips (75.7%). Study subjects reported suffering from adverse effects, including mainly diuresis (53.7%), palpitations (50.7%), insomnia (50.7%). Importantly, an inverse association was identified between knowledge of EDs and consumption rate, and a proportional association was identified between experienced adverse effects and consumption frequency. Lower knowledge scores were identified in daily consumers than in 1-3 times monthly consumers; higher adverse events were experienced by daily consumers than by 1-3 times monthly consumers. The majority of consumers (84.6%) recommended that authorities should regulate EDs consumption.ConclusionsExcessive EDs consumption is associated with an increased risk of experiencing several adverse events, which is commensurate with published studies. Increasing knowledge about EDs and their possible risks could decrease their consumption by the general public.

Project description:Background3 billion people worldwide rely on polluting fuels and technologies for domestic cooking and heating. We estimate the global, regional, and national health burden associated with exposure to household air pollution.MethodsFor the systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched four databases for studies published from database inception to April 2, 2020, that evaluated the risk of adverse cardiorespiratory, paediatric, and maternal outcomes from exposure to household air pollution, compared with no exposure. We used a random-effects model to calculate disease-specific relative risk (RR) meta-estimates. Household air pollution exposure was defined as use of polluting fuels (coal, wood, charcoal, agricultural wastes, animal dung, or kerosene) for household cooking or heating. Temporal trends in mortality and disease burden associated with household air pollution, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), were estimated from 2000 to 2017 using exposure prevalence data from 183 of 193 UN member states. 95% CIs were estimated by propagating uncertainty from the RR meta-estimates, prevalence of household air pollution exposure, and disease-specific mortality and burden estimates using a simulation-based approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019125060.Findings476 studies (15·5 million participants) from 123 nations (99 [80%] of which were classified as low-income and middle-income) met the inclusion criteria. Household air pollution was positively associated with asthma (RR 1·23, 95% CI 1·11-1·36), acute respiratory infection in both adults (1·53, 1·22-1·93) and children (1·39, 1·29-1·49), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1·70, 1·47-1·97), lung cancer (1·69, 1·44-1·98), and tuberculosis (1·26, 1·08-1·48); cerebrovascular disease (1·09, 1·04-1·14) and ischaemic heart disease (1·10, 1·09-1·11); and low birthweight (1·36, 1·19-1·55) and stillbirth (1·22, 1·06-1·41); as well as with under-5 (1·25, 1·18-1·33), respiratory (1·19, 1·18-1·20), and cardiovascular (1·07, 1·04-1·11) mortality. Household air pollution was associated with 1·8 million (95% CI 1·1-2·7) deaths and 60·9 million (34·6-93·3) DALYs in 2017, with the burden overwhelmingly experienced in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs; 60·8 million [34·6-92·9] DALYs) compared with high-income countries (0·09 million [0·01-0·40] DALYs). From 2000, mortality associated with household air pollution had reduced by 36% (95% CI 29-43) and disease burden by 30% (25-36), with the greatest reductions observed in higher-income nations.InterpretationThe burden of cardiorespiratory, paediatric, and maternal diseases associated with household air pollution has declined worldwide but remains high in the world's poorest regions. Urgent integrated health and energy strategies are needed to reduce the adverse health impact of household air pollution, especially in LMICs.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, Wellcome Trust.

Project description:BackgroundAntidepressants are widely used in the treatment of chronic pain. Applied doses are lower than those needed to unfold an antidepressive effect. While efficacy of antidepressants for chronic pain has been reported in large randomized-controlled trials (RCT), there is inconsistent data on adverse effects and tolerability. We aimed at synthesizing data from RCT to explore adverse effect profiles and tolerability of antidepressants for treatment of chronic pain.MethodsSystematic literature research and meta-analyses were performed regarding side effects and safety of different antidepressants in the treatment of chronic pain according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The National Center for Biotechnology Information library and MEDLINE were searched. Randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in quantitative data synthesis.ResultsOut of 1,975 screened articles, 33 papers published between 1995 and 2015 were included in our review and 23 studies were included in the meta-analyses. A higher risk for adverse effects compared to placebo was observed in all antidepressants included in our analyses, except nortriptyline. The most prevalent adverse effects were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation. Amitriptyline, mirtazapine, desipramine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and nortriptyline showed the highest placebo effect-adjusted risk of adverse effects. Risk for withdrawal due to adverse effects was highest in desipramine (risk ratio: 4.09, 95%-confidence interval [1.31; 12.82]) followed by milnacipran, venlafaxine, and duloxetine. The most common adverse effects under treatment with antidepressants were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation followed by palpitations, sweating, and drowsiness. However, overall tolerability was high. Each antidepressant showed distinct risk profiles of adverse effects.ConclusionOur synthesized data analysis confirmed overall tolerability of low-dose antidepressants for the treatment of chronic pain and revealed drug specific risk profiles. This encompassing characterization of adverse effect profiles might be useful in defining multimodal treatment regimens for chronic pain which also consider patients' comorbidities and co-medication.

Project description:BackgroundVarious types of framing can influence risk perceptions, which may have an impact on treatment decisions and adherence. One way of framing is the use of verbal terms in communicating the probabilities of treatment effects. We systematically reviewed the comparative effects of words versus numbers in communicating the probability of adverse effects to consumers in written health information.MethodsNine electronic databases were searched up to November 2012. Teams of two reviewers independently assessed studies.Inclusion criteriarandomised controlled trials; verbal versus numerical presentation; context: written consumer health information.ResultsTen trials were included. Participants perceived probabilities presented in verbal terms as higher than in numeric terms: commonly used verbal descriptors systematically led to an overestimation of the absolute risk of adverse effects (Range of means: 3% - 54%). Numbers also led to an overestimation of probabilities, but the overestimation was smaller (2% - 20%). The difference in means ranged from 3.8% to 45.9%, with all but one comparison showing significant results. Use of numbers increased satisfaction with the information (MD: 0.48 [CI: 0.32 to 0.63], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) and likelihood of medication use (MD for very common side effects: 1.45 [CI: 0.78 to 2.11], p = 0.0001, I2 = 68%; MD for common side effects: 0.90 [CI: 0.61 to 1.19], p < 0.00001, I2 = 1%; MD for rare side effects: 0.39 [0.02 to 0.76], p = 0.04, I2 = not applicable). Outcomes were measured on a 6-point Likert scale, suggesting small to moderate effects.ConclusionsVerbal descriptors including "common", "uncommon" and "rare" lead to an overestimation of the probability of adverse effects compared to numerical information, if used as previously suggested by the European Commission. Numbers result in more accurate estimates and increase satisfaction and likelihood of medication use. Our review suggests that providers of consumer health information should quantify treatment effects numerically. Future research should focus on the impact of personal and contextual factors, use representative samples or be conducted in real life settings, measure behavioral outcomes and address whether benefit information can be described verbally.

Project description:ImportancePsilocybin has been studied in the treatment of depression and anxiety disorders. Clinical studies have mainly focused on efficacy, with systematic reviews showing favorable efficacy; however, none have primarily focused on psilocybin safety.ObjectiveTo evaluate the acute adverse effects of psilocybin at therapeutic doses in the treatment of depression and anxiety.Data sourcesMEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for publications available between 1966 and November 30, 2023.Study selectionRandomized, double-blind clinical trials that reported adverse effects of psilocybin in patients treated for depression and anxiety were screened.Data extraction and synthesisData were independently extracted by 2 authors and verified by 2 additional authors following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. The inverse variance method with the Hartung-Knapp adjustment for the random-effects model was used, with a continuity correction of 0.5 for studies with 0 cell frequencies. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by sequentially removing 1 study at a time to assess the robustness of the results.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was considered as the adverse effects of psilocybin at high and moderate (ie, therapeutic) dose regimens and compared with placebo, low-dose psilocybin, or other comparator in the treatment of depression and/or anxiety.ResultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria with a total sample of 528 participants (approximately 51% female; median age 39.8 years; IQR, 39.8-41.2). Seven adverse effects were reported in multiple studies and included in the analysis. Among these, headache (relative risk [RR], 1.99; 95% CI 1.06-3.74), nausea (RR, 8.85; 95% CI, 5.68-13.79), anxiety (RR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.11-4.64), dizziness (RR, 5.81; 95% CI, 1.02-33.03), and elevated blood pressure (RR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.15- 4.53) were statistically significant. Psilocybin use was not associated with risk of paranoia and transient thought disorder.Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis, the acute adverse effect profile of therapeutic single-dose psilocybin appeared to be tolerable and resolved within 48 hours. However, future studies need to more actively evaluate the appropriate management of adverse effects.