Protein intake and cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews for the evidence-based guideline of the German Nutrition Society.

PURPOSE: It has been proposed that a higher habitual protein intake may increase cancer risk, possibly via upregulated insulin-like growth factor signalling. Since a systematic evaluation of human studies on protein intake and cancer risk based on a standardised assessment of systematic reviews (SRs) is lacking, we carried out an umbrella review of SRs on protein intake in relation to risks of different types of cancer. METHODS: Following a pre-specified protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42018082395), we retrieved SRs on protein intake and cancer risk published before January 22th 2024, and assessed the methodological quality and outcome-specific certainty of the evidence using a modified version of AMSTAR 2 and NutriGrade, respectively. The overall certainty of evidence was rated according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: Ten SRs were identified, of which eight included meta-analyses. Higher total protein intake was not associated with risks of breast, prostate, colorectal, ovarian, or pancreatic cancer incidence. The methodological quality of the included SRs ranged from critically low (kidney cancer), low (pancreatic, ovarian and prostate cancer) and moderate (breast and prostate cancer) to high (colorectal cancer). The outcome-specific certainty of the evidence underlying the reported findings on protein intake and cancer risk ranged from very low (pancreatic, ovarian and prostate cancer) to low (colorectal, ovarian, prostate, and breast cancer). Animal and plant protein intakes were not associated with cancer risks either at a low (breast and prostate cancer) or very low (pancreatic and prostate cancer) outcome-specific certainty of the evidence. Overall, the evidence for the lack of an association between protein intake and (i) colorectal cancer risk and (ii) breast cancer risk was rated as possible. By contrast, the evidence underlying the other reported results was rated as insufficient. CONCLUSION: The present findings suggest that higher total protein intake may not be associated with the risk of colorectal and breast cancer, while conclusions on protein intake in relation to risks of other types of cancer are restricted due to insufficient evidence.

Protein intake and type 2 diabetes mellitus: an umbrella review of systematic reviews for the evidence-based guideline for protein intake of the German Nutrition Society.

PURPOSE: Protein-rich foods show heterogeneous associations with the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and it remains unclear whether habitual protein intake is related to T2D risk. We carried out an umbrella review of systematic reviews (SR) of randomised trials and/or cohort studies on protein intake in relation to risks of T2D. METHODS: Following a pre-specified protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42018082395), we retrieved SRs on protein intake and T2D risk published between July 1st 2009 and May 22nd 2022, and assessed the methodological quality and outcome-specific certainty of the evidence using a modified version of AMSTAR 2 and NutriGrade, respectively. The overall certainty of evidence was rated according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: Eight SRs were identified of which six contained meta-analyses. The majority of SRs on total protein intake had moderate or high methodological quality and moderate outcome-specific certainty of evidence according to NutriGrade, however, the latter was low for the majority of SRs on animal and plant protein. Six of the eight SRs reported risk increases with both total and animal protein. According to one SR, total protein intake in studies was ~ 21 energy percentage (%E) in the highest intake category and 15%E in the lowest intake category. Relative Risks comparing high versus low intake in most recent SRs ranged from 1.09 (two SRs, 95% CIs 1.02-1.15 and 1.06-1.13) to 1.11 (1.05-1.16) for total protein (between 8 and 12 cohort studies included) and from 1.13 (1.08-1.19) to 1.19 (two SRs, 1.11-1.28 and 1.11-1.28) (8-9 cohort studies) for animal protein. However, SRs on RCTs examining major glycaemic traits (HbA1c, fasting glucose, fasting insulin) do not support a clear biological link with T2D risk. For plant protein, some recent SRs pointed towards risk decreases and non-linear associations, however, the majority did not support an association with T2D risk. CONCLUSION: Higher total protein intake was possibly associated with higher T2D risk, while there is insufficient evidence for a risk increase with higher intakes of animal protein and a risk decrease with plant protein intake. Given that most SRs on plant protein did not indicate an association, there is possibly a lack of an effect.

Protein intake and bone health: an umbrella review of systematic reviews for the evidence-based guideline of the German Nutrition Society.

This umbrella review aimed at assessing whether a protein intake exceeding the current recommendation for younger (0.8 g/kg body weight [BW]/day) and older (1.0 g/kg BW/day) adults affects bone mineral density and fracture risk. Moreover, the effect of animal or plant protein was evaluated. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analysis of prospective studies published between 11/2008 and 08/2021. Methodological quality, outcome-specific certainty of evidence, and overall certainty of evidence of the retrieved SRs were assessed using established tools and predefined criteria. Eleven SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and/or cohort studies were included. In SRs of cohort studies and RCTs, protein intake/kg BW/day ranged between 0.21-0.95 g (low intake) and > 1.24 g (high intake), respectively, and between 0.67-1.1 g (control groups) and 1.01-1.69 g (intervention groups), respectively. The vast majority of outcome-specific certainty of evidence was rated "low" or "very low." The overall certainty of evidence for an association (cohort studies) or effect (RCTs) of total, animal or plant protein intake on each of the investigated outcomes was rated "insufficient," with the exception of possible evidence for a reduced hip fracture risk by high vs. low protein intake. Since protein intakes in low/control and high/intervention groups were very heterogeneous and with low certainty of evidence, it remains unclear whether a dose above the current recommendation or type of protein intake (animal or plant protein) affects bone health overall. However, there is possible evidence for reduced hip fracture risk with high versus low protein intake.

Protein intake and risk of urolithiasis and kidney diseases: an umbrella review of systematic reviews for the evidence-based guideline of the German Nutrition Society.

PURPOSE: Changes in dietary protein intake metabolically affect kidney functions. However, knowledge on potential adverse consequences of long-term higher protein intake (HPI) for kidney health is lacking. To summarise and evaluate the available evidence for a relation between HPI and kidney diseases, an umbrella review of systematic reviews (SR) was conducted. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Database of SRs published until 12/2022 were searched for the respective SRs with and without meta-analyses (MA) of randomised controlled trials or cohort studies. For assessments of methodological quality and of outcome-specific certainty of evidence, a modified version of AMSTAR 2 and the NutriGrade scoring tool were used, respectively. The overall certainty of evidence was assessed according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: Six SRs with MA and three SRs without MA on various kidney-related outcomes were identified. Outcomes were chronic kidney disease, kidney stones and kidney function-related parameters: albuminuria, glomerular filtration rate, serum urea, urinary pH and urinary calcium excretion. Overall certainty of evidence was graded as 'possible' for stone risk not to be associated with HPI and albuminuria not to be elevated through HPI (above recommendations (> 0.8 g/kg body weight/day)) and graded as 'probable' or 'possible' for most other kidney function-related parameters to be physiologically increased with HPI. CONCLUSION: Changes of the assessed outcomes may have reflected mostly physiological (regulatory), but not pathometabolic responses to higher protein loads. For none of the outcomes, evidence was found that HPI does specifically trigger kidney stones or diseases. However, for potential recommendations long-term data, also over decades, are required.

Dietary protein intake and health-related outcomes: a methodological protocol for the evidence evaluation and the outline of an evidence to decision framework underlying the evidence-based guideline of the German Nutrition Society.

PURPOSE: The present work aimed to delineate (i) a revised protocol according to recent methodological developments in evidence generation, to (ii) describe its interpretation, the assessment of the overall certainty of evidence and to (iii) outline an Evidence to Decision framework for deriving an evidence-based guideline on quantitative and qualitative aspects of dietary protein intake. METHODS: A methodological protocol to systematically investigate the association between dietary protein intake and several health outcomes and for deriving dietary protein intake recommendations for the primary prevention of various non-communicable diseases in the general adult population was developed. RESULTS: The developed methodological protocol relies on umbrella reviews including systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses. Systematic literature searches in three databases will be performed for each health-related outcome. The methodological quality of all selected systematic reviews will be evaluated using a modified version of AMSTAR 2, and the outcome-specific certainty of evidence for systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis will be assessed with NutriGrade. The general outline of the Evidence to Decision framework foresees that recommendations in the derived guideline will be given based on the overall certainty of evidence as well as on additional criteria such as sustainability. CONCLUSION: The methodological protocol permits a systematic evaluation of published systematic reviews on dietary protein intake and its association with selected health-related outcomes. An Evidence to Decision framework will be the basis for the overall conclusions and the resulting recommendations for dietary protein intake.