BackgroundStudies of the associations between soft drinks and the risk of cancer showed inconsistent results. No previous published systematic reviews and meta-analysis has investigated a dose-response association between exposure dose and cancer risk or assessed the certainty of currently available evidence. Therefore, we aim to demonstrate the associations and assessed the certainty of the evidence to show our confidence in the associations.MethodsWe searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to Jun 2022, to include relevant prospective cohort studies. We used a restricted cubic spline model to conduct a dose-response meta-analysis and calculated the absolute effect estimates to present the results. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsForty-two articles including on 37 cohorts enrolled 4,518,547 participants were included. With low certainty evidence, increased consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 17% greater risk of breast cancer, a 10% greater risk of colorectal cancer, a 30% greater risk of biliary tract cancer, and a 10% greater risk of prostate cancer; increased consumption of artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs)re per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 16% greater risk of leukemia; increased consumption of 100% fruit juice per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 31% greater risk of overall cancer, 22% greater risk of melanoma, 2% greater risk of squamous cell carcinoma, and 29% greater risk of thyroid cancer. The associations with other specific cancer were no significant. We found linear dose-response associations between consumption of SSBs and the risk of breast and kidney cancer, and between consumption of ASBs and 100% fruit juices and the risk of pancreatic cancer.ConclusionsAn increment in consumption of SSBs of 250 mL/day was positively associated with increased risk of breast, colorectal, and biliary tract cancer. Fruit juices consumption was also positively associated with the risk of overall cancer, thyroid cancer, and melanoma. The magnitude of absolute effects, however, was small and mainly based on low or very low certainty of evidence. The association of ASBs consumption with specific cancer risk was uncertain.

White rice is the food more than half of the world's population depends on. White rice intake can significantly increase the glycemic load of consumers and bring some adverse health effects. However, the quality of evidence implicating white rice in adverse health outcomes remains unclear. To evaluate the association between white rice consumption and the risk of cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes, a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of the relevant publications were performed. Twenty-three articles including 28 unique prospective cohorts with 1,527,198 participants proved eligible after a comprehensive search in four databases. For the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the pooled RR was 1.18 (16 more per 1000 persons) for comparing the highest with the lowest category of white rice intake, with moderate certainty evidence. Females presented a higher risk (23 more per 1000 persons) in subgroup analysis. And every additional 150 grams of white rice intake per day was associated with a 6% greater risk of T2DM (5 more per 1000 persons) with a linear positive trend. We found no significant associations between white rice intake and risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), CVD mortality, cancer, and metabolic syndrome. In conclusion, moderate certainty evidence demonstrated that white rice intake was associated with T2DM risk, with a linear positive trend. However, low to very low certainty of evidence suggested that no substantial associations were found between white rice intake and other cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes. More cohorts are needed to strength the evidence body.

Background Revefenacin (REV) is a novel once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in the treatment of moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic review incorporating a dose-response meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of REV. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and Wanfang database were searched from their inception to April 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated the efficacy and safety of REV in COPD patients. Two reviewers independently performed study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Outcomes consisted of the mean change in trough Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). A dose-response meta-analysis using the robust error meta-regression method was conducted. We used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. Results Nine RCTs (3,121 participants) were included in this systematic review. The meta-analyses indicated that 175 mu g/day REV could significantly improve the trough FEV1 (MD=143.67, 95%CI: 129.67 to 157.68; I-2=96%; 809 participants; studies=4; low quality) without increasing the risk of AEs (OR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.81 to 1.18; I-2=34%; 2,286 participants; studies=7; low quality) or SAEs (OR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.55 to 1.46; I-2=0%; 2,318 participants; studies=7; very low quality) compared to placebo. Furthermore, the effect of REV in increasing trough FEV1 was dose-dependent with an effective threshold of 88 mu g/day (R-2 = 0.7017). Nevertheless, only very low-quality to low-quality evidence showed that REV at a dose of 175 mu g/day was inferior to tiotropium regarding the long-term efficacy, and its safety profile was not superior to tiotropium or ipratropium. Conclusion Current evidence shows that REV is a promising option for the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. Due to most evidence graded as low quality, further studies are required to compare the efficacy, long-term safety and cost-effectiveness between REV and other LAMAs in different populations.