Heart health = urologic health and heart unhealthy = urologic unhealthy: rapid review of lifestyle changes and dietary supplements

Vitamin D deficiency, behavioral atypicality, anxiety and depression in children with chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome

Chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) is a complex developmental disorder with serious medical, cognitive and emotional symptoms across the lifespan. This genetic deletion also imparts a lifetime risk for developing schizophrenia that is 25-30 times that of the general population. The origin of this risk is multifactorial and may include dysregulation of the stress response and immunological systems in relation to brain development. Vitamin D is involved in brain development and neuroprotection, gene transcription, immunological regulation and influences neuronal signal transduction. Low levels of vitamin D are associated with schizophrenia, depression and anxiety in the general population. Yet, little is known about how vitamin D levels in children with 22q11.2DS could mediate risk of psychosis in adulthood. Blood plasma levels of vitamin D were measured in children aged 7-16 years with (n=11) and without (n=16) 22q11.2DS in relation to parent reports of children's anxiety and atypicality. Anxiety and atypicality in childhood are risk indicators for the development of schizophrenia in those with 22q11.2DS and the general population. Children with 22q11.2DS had lower vitamin D levels, as well as elevated anxiety and atypicality compared with typical peers. Higher levels of anxiety, depression and internalizing problems but not atypicality were associated with lower levels of vitamin D. Vitamin D insufficiency may relate to higher levels of anxiety and depression, in turn contributing to the elevated risk of psychosis in this population. Further study is required to determine casual linkages between anxiety, stress, mood and vitamin D in children with 22q11.2DS.

Heart healthy equals prostate healthy and statins, aspirin, and/or metformin (S.A.M.) are the ideal recommendations for prostate cancer prevention

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been the number one cause of death in the U.S. for 114 of the last 115 years. Lifestyle factors that promote CVD also appear to increase prostate cancer risk and those that reduce CVD risk also appear to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. The largest randomized trials utilizing dietary supplements or pharmacologic agents for prostate cancer prevention (Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial [SELECT]) have also shed light on the problems and future solutions in this area. Dietary supplements that have not been found to be CVD protective, such as selenium and Vitamin E have not been found to be prostate protective. In addition, over exposure to specific anti-oxidants in nutritionally replete populations may be encouraging cancer growth. Future trials of dietary supplements to prevent prostate cancer could be problematic because by the time a definitive trial is initiated the participants will no longer be “deficient” in the nutrient being tested, which arguably occurred in the SELECT trial. It is also interesting that statins, aspirin, and/or metformin (S.A.M.) are 3 generic, low-cost, heart healthy agents derived from natural sources with separate mechanism of actions, which all appear to have the best benefit to risk ratio compared to any other agent available for prostate cancer prevention, especially aggressive disease, or as an ancillary agent (s) to conventional cancer treatment. It is time to focus on the forest over the trees and recommend proven CVD protective measures for men concerned about their risk of prostate cancer.

A scoping review of rapid review methods

BACKGROUND

Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner. Although numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, few studies have examined the methodological characteristics of rapid reviews. We aimed to examine articles, books, and reports that evaluated, compared, used or described rapid reviews or methods through a scoping review.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, internet websites of rapid review producers, and reference lists were searched to identify articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results and abstracted data from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

We included 100 articles plus one companion report that were published between 1997 and 2013. The studies were categorized as 84 application papers, seven development papers, six impact papers, and four comparison papers (one was included in two categories). The rapid reviews were conducted between 1 and 12 months, predominantly in Europe (58 %) and North America (20 %). The included studies failed to report 6 % to 73 % of the specific systematic review steps examined. Fifty unique rapid review methods were identified; 16 methods occurred more than once. Streamlined methods that were used in the 82 rapid reviews included limiting the literature search to published literature (24 %) or one database (2 %), limiting inclusion criteria by date (68 %) or language (49 %), having one person screen and another verify or screen excluded studies (6 %), having one person abstract data and another verify (23 %), not conducting risk of bias/quality appraisal (7 %) or having only one reviewer conduct the quality appraisal (7 %), and presenting results as a narrative summary (78 %). Four case studies were identified that compared the results of rapid reviews to systematic reviews. Three studies found that the conclusions between rapid reviews and systematic reviews were congruent.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous rapid review approaches were identified and few were used consistently in the literature. Poor quality of reporting was observed. A prospective study comparing the results from rapid reviews to those obtained through systematic reviews is warranted.