Dataset Information

Sports nutrition supplements and adverse events - a meta-epidemiological study of case reports specifically addressing causality assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This meta-epidemiological study aimed to systematically review case reports regarding sports nutrition supplements and adverse events (AEs), specifically addressing the issue of causality assessments.

Methods

Through a systematic literature search we identified all published case reports of AEs associated with sports nutrition supplements between 1 January 2008 and 1 March 2019. Data regarding AEs, suspected supplements, relevant causality assessment factors and the reporting of clinical reasoning and/or systematic causality assessment methods were extracted.

Results

In all, 72 publications were included, reporting 134 supplements and 37 different AEs in 97 patients (85% males; median age: 30 years [range: 14-60]). Information regarding previous health and regular prescription drugs was not presented in 30% (29/97) and 46% (45/97) of cases, respectively. In 23% (22/97) of the cases, no alternative cause was mentioned. Clinical reasoning was identified in 63% (61/97), and in 13% (8/61) of these, a systematic causality assessment method was applied. In cases with clinical reasoning, a theoretic rationale (92% vs 78%, P = 0.05), a description of previous cases (90% vs 72%, P = 0.021) and body fluid analysis (18% vs 3%, P = 0.027) were reported to a greater extent. Among cases with clinical reasoning, the application of a systematic causality assessment method captured additional important aspects: use of medication (100% vs 55%, P = 0.015), alcohol use (88% vs 43%, P = 0.020) and illicit drug use (88% vs 40%, P = 0.011).

Conclusions

In published case reports where sports nutrition supplements were suspected to have caused AEs, essential factors for causality assessment were left out in a non-negligible proportion. Clinical reasoning was identified in most cases whereas a systematic causality assessment method was applied in a minority. Factors of importance for causality assessment were reported to a greater extent in cases including clinical reasoning, and the application of a systematic causality assessment method captured additional aspects of importance.

SUBMITTER: Zeijlon R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8724217 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dietary supplements, such as herbal or complementary nutritional products and micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), are commonly used in the United States, yet national data on adverse effects are limited. METHODS:We used nationally representative surveillance data from 63 emergency departments obtained from 2004 through 2013 to describe visits to U.S. emergency departments because of adverse events related to dietary supplements. RESULTS:On the basis of 3667 cases, we estimated that 23,005 (95% confidence interval [CI], 18,611 to 27,398) emergency department visits per year were attributed to adverse events related to dietary supplements. These visits resulted in an estimated 2154 hospitalizations (95% CI, 1342 to 2967) annually. Such visits frequently involved young adults between the ages of 20 and 34 years (28.0% of visits; 95% CI, 25.1 to 30.8) and unsupervised children (21.2% of visits; 95% CI, 18.4 to 24.0). After the exclusion of unsupervised ingestion of dietary supplements by children, 65.9% (95% CI, 63.2 to 68.5) of emergency department visits for single-supplement-related adverse events involved herbal or complementary nutritional products; 31.8% (95% CI, 29.2 to 34.3) involved micronutrients. Herbal or complementary nutritional products for weight loss (25.5%; 95% CI, 23.1 to 27.9) and increased energy (10.0%; 95% CI, 8.0 to 11.9) were commonly implicated. Weight-loss or energy products caused 71.8% (95% CI, 67.6 to 76.1) of supplement-related adverse events involving palpitations, chest pain, or tachycardia, and 58.0% (95% CI, 52.2 to 63.7) involved persons 20 to 34 years of age. Among adults 65 years of age or older, choking or pill-induced dysphagia or globus caused 37.6% (95% CI, 29.1 to 46.2) of all emergency department visits for supplement-related adverse events; micronutrients were implicated in 83.1% (95% CI, 73.3 to 92.9) of these visits. CONCLUSIONS:An estimated 23,000 emergency department visits in the United States every year are attributed to adverse events related to dietary supplements. Such visits commonly involve cardiovascular manifestations from weight-loss or energy products among young adults and swallowing problems, often associated with micronutrients, among older adults. (Funded by the Department of Health and Human Services.).

Project description:The dietary supplements market is growing, and their use is increasing among professional athletes. Recently, several new protein supplements have been placed in the marketplace, including energy bars enriched with insect flour. Edible insects, which are rich in protein content, have been promoted as the food of the future and athletes could be a reference sample for their continued emphasis on higher protein demand. The present study investigated the potential motivations to accept an energy protein bar with cricket flour, among a group of selected Italian professional athletes. A second aim was also to measure how an information treatment about the benefits of edible insects would have impact on acceptance. 61 Italian professional athletes (27 females) completed a structured questionnaire regarding supplements and eating habits, food neophobia, nutrition knowledge, willingness to taste edible insects and the associated factors. A question about sports endorsement was also posed at the end of the survey. all subjects consumed supplements, generally recommended by medical personnel, even though their general knowledge of nutrition was poor (47.8%). Our main results shown that on a seven-point Likert scale, the protein content (5.74 ± 1.01) and the curiosity about texture (5.24 ± 0.98) were the main drivers to taste the cricket energy bar; whereas the feeling of disgust (5.58 ± 1.08) justified the rejection of tasting insects. In addition, the level of food neophobia increases with age (p < 0.05) and reduces willingness to endorse the cricket bar (p < 0.05). Male athletes (4.47 ± 1.69) were more likely to endorse the product than females (3.3 ± 1.49). An increase in willingness to taste was observed after the information treatment (z = 4.16, p < 0.001). Even though the population under investigation is unique, it is important to mention that this study involves a relatively small and convenience sample, and therefore generalizability of the results should be done with caution.

Project description:The analysis of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) is important in a balanced epidemiological evaluation of vaccines and in the issues related to vaccine injury compensation programs. The majority of adverse reactions to vaccines occur as excessive or biased inflammatory and immune responses. These unwanted phenomena, occasionally severe, are associated with many different endogenous and exogenous factors, which often interact in complex ways. The confirmation or denial of the causal link between an AEFI and vaccination is determined pursuant to WHO guidelines, which propose a four-step analysis and algorithmic diagramming. The evaluation process from the onset considers all possible "other causes" that might explain the AEFI and thus exclude the role of the vaccine. Subsequently, even if there was biological plausibility and temporal compatibility for a causal association between the vaccine and the AEFI, the guidelines ask to look for any possible evidence that the vaccine could not have caused that event. Such an algorithmic method presents several concerns that are discussed here, in the light of the multifactorial nature of the inflammatory and immune pathologies induced by vaccines, including emerging knowledge of genetic susceptibility to adverse effects. It is proposed that the causality assessment could exclude a consistent association of the adverse event with the vaccine only when the presumed "other cause" is independent of an interaction with the vaccine. Furthermore, the scientific literature should be viewed not as an exclusion criterion but as a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence for or against the role of the vaccine in causing an adverse reaction. Given these inadequacies in the evaluation of multifactorial diseases, the WHO guidelines need to be reevaluated and revised. These issues are discussed in relation to the laws that, in some countries, regulate the mandatory vaccinations and the compensation for those who have suffered serious adverse effects.

Project description:BackgroundOral adverse events (AEs) following COVID-19 vaccination have been sporadically reported during the previous months, warranting further investigation for their prevalence and suspected relationship with vaccine-elicited immune response.MethodsA retrospective analysis using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data was conducted to evaluate AEs within the oral cavity (mucosa, tongue, lips, palate, dentition, salivary glands) and AEs involving taste and other sensations. Oral AEs reported after receiving COVID-19 vaccination (test group) and seasonal influenza vaccination (control group) were extracted and cross-tabulated to assess their relative prevalence.ResultsAmong the 128 solicited (suspected) oral AEs, oral paresthesia (0.872%) was most reported after receiving COVID-19 vaccines, followed by the swelling of lips (0.844%), ageusia (0.722%), oral hypoesthesia (0.648%), swollen tongue (0.628%), and dysgeusia (0.617%). The reported prevalence of oral AEs was higher in the COVID-19 vaccine group than in the seasonal influenza group. The distribution pattern of the most reported oral AEs was similar for both COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines. Female sex, older age (>39 years old), primer doses, and mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines exhibited a higher reported prevalence of oral AEs.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this study, COVID-19 vaccines were found to be associated with rare oral AEs that are predominantly similar to those emerging following seasonal influenza vaccines. The most commonly reported oral AEs were oral paraesthesia (mouth-tingling), lip swelling, and ageusia, representing various pathophysiologic pathways that remain unclear. Taste-related AEs should be acknowledged in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the public should be adequately informed about a potential taste dysfunction after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Dentists and dental teams need to be aware of the prevalence, severity, and prognosis of oral AEs to inform their patients and increase public confidence in vaccines.