Chocolate and risk of chronic disease: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Evidence for the association between chocolate intake and risk of chronic diseases is inconclusive. Therefore, we aimed to synthesize and evaluate the credibility of evidence on the dose-response association between chocolate consumption with risk of all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, heart failure (HF), type 2 diabetes (T2D), colorectal cancer (CRC), and hypertension. METHODS: Prospective studies were searched until July 2018 in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Random-effects meta-analyses comparing highest versus lowest intake categories, linear, and non-linear dose-response analyses were conducted. The credibility of evidence was evaluated with the NutriGrade scoring-system. RESULTS: Overall, 27 investigations were identified (n = 2 for all-cause mortality, n = 9 for CHD, n = 8 for stroke, n = 6 for HF, n = 6 for T2D, n = 2 for hypertension and CRC, respectively). No associations with HF (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94, 1.04) and T2D (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88, 1.01) per each 10 g/day increase in chocolate intake were observed in the linear dose-response meta-analyses. However, a small inverse association for each 10 g/daily increase could be shown for the risk of CHD (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93, 0.99), and stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82, 0.98). The credibility of evidence was rated either very low (all-cause mortality, HF, T2D, CRC or hypertension) or low (CHD, stroke). CONCLUSION: Chocolate consumption is not related to risk for several chronic diseases, but could have a small inverse association with CHD and stroke. Our findings are limited by very low or low credibility of evidence, highlighting important uncertainty for chocolate-disease associations.

Effects of oils and solid fats on blood lipids: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the effects of different oils/solid fats on blood lipids. Literature searches were performed until March 2018. Inclusion criteria were as follows: i) randomized trial (3 weeks study length) comparing at least two of the following oils/solid fats: safflower, sunflower, rapeseed, hempseed, flaxseed, corn, olive, soybean, palm, and coconut oil, and lard, beef-fat, and butter; ii) outcomes LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C), and triacylglycerols (TGs). A random dose-response (per 10% isocaloric exchange) NMA was performed and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was estimated. Fifty-four trials were included in the NMA. Safflower oil had the highest SUCRA value for LDL-C (82%) and TC (90%), followed by rapeseed oil (76% for LDL-C, 85% for TC); whereas, palm oil (74%) had the highest SUCRA value for TG, and coconut oil (88%) for HDL-C. Safflower, sunflower, rapeseed, flaxseed, corn, olive, soybean, palm, and coconut oil as well beef fat were more effective in reducing LDL-C (-0.42 to -0.23 mmol/l) as compared with butter. Despite limitations in these data, our NMA findings are in line with existing evidence on the metabolic effects of fat and support current recommendations to replace high saturated-fat food with unsaturated oils.