Vive la Difference! The Effects of Natural and Conventional Wines on Blood Alcohol Concentrations: A Randomized, Triple-Blind, Controlled Study.

Different alcoholic beverages can have different effects on blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and neurotoxicity, even when equalized for alcohol content by volume. Anecdotal evidence suggested that natural wine is metabolized differently from conventional wines. This triple-blind study compared the BAC of 55 healthy male subjects after consuming the equivalent of 2 units of alcohol of a natural or conventional wine over 3 min in two separate sessions, one week apart. BAC was measured using a professional breathalyzer every 20 min after consumption for 2 h. The BAC curves in response to the two wines diverged significantly at twenty minutes (interval T20) and forty minutes (interval T40), and also at their maximum concentrations (peaks), with the natural wine inducing a lower BAC than the conventional wine [T20 = 0.40 versus 0.46 (p < 0.0002); T40 = 0.49 versus 0.53 (p < 0.0015); peak = 0.52 versus 0.56 (p < 0.0002)]. These differences are likely related to the development of different amino acids and antioxidants in the two wines during their production. This may in turn affect the kinetics of alcohol absorption and metabolism. Other contributing factors could include pesticide residues, differences in dry extract content, and the use of indigenous or selected yeasts. The study shows that with the same quantity and conditions of intake, natural wine has lower pharmacokinetic and metabolic effects than conventional wine, which can be assumed due to the different agronomic and oenological practices with which they are produced. It can therefore be hypothesized that the consumption of natural wine may have a different impact on human health from that of conventional wine.

Systematic review and critique of circulating miRNAs as biomarkers of stage I-II non-small cell lung cancer.

Selected circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) have been suggested for non-invasive screening of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), however the numerous proposed miRNA signatures are inconsistent. Aiming to identify miRNAs suitable specifically for stage I-II NSCLC screening in serum/plasma samples, we searched the databases "Pubmed", "Medline", "Scopus", "Embase" and "WOS" and systematically reviewed the publications reporting quantitative data on the efficacy [sensitivity, specificity and/or area under the curve (AUC)] of circulating miRNAs as biomarkers of NSCLC stage I and/or II. The 20 studies fulfilling the search criteria included 1110 NSCLC patients and 1009 controls, and were of medium quality according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist. In these studies, the patient cohorts as well as the control groups were heterogeneous for demographics and clinicopathological characteristics; moreover, numerous pre-analytical and analytical variables likely influenced miRNA determinations, and potential bias of hemolysis was often underestimated. We identified four circulating miRNAs scarcely influenced by hemolysis, each featuring high sensitivity (> 80%) and AUC (> 0.80) as biomarkers of stage I-II NSCLC: miR-223, miR-20a, miR-448 and miR-145; four other miRNAs showed high specificity (> 90%): miR-628-3p, miR-29c, miR-210 and miR-1244. In a model of two-step screening for stage I-II NSCLC using first the above panel of serum miRNAs with high sensitivity and high AUC, and subsequently the panel with high specificity, the estimated overall sensitivity is 91.6% and overall specificity is 93.4%. These and other circulating miRNAs suggested for stage I-II NSCLC screening require validation in multiple independent studies before they can be proposed for clinical application.