Causal relationships between body mass index, low-density lipoprotein and bone mineral density: Univariable and multivariable Mendelian randomization.

SUMMARY: Utilizing the Mendelian randomization technique, this research clarifies the putative causal relationship between body mass index (BMI) andbone mineral density (BMD), and the mediating role of low-density lipoprotein (LDL). The implications of these findings present promising opportunities for enhancing our understanding of complex bone-related characteristics and disorders, offering potential directions for treatment and intervention. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine the correlation between BMI and BMD, while exploring the intermediary role of LDL in mediating the causal impact of BMI on BMD outcomes via Mendelian randomization. METHODS: In this study, we employed genome-wide association study (GWAS) data on BMI, LDL, and BMD to conduct a comparative analysis using both univariate and multivariate Mendelian randomization. RESULTS: Our study employed a two-sample Mendelian randomization design. Considering BMI as the exposure and BMD as the outcome, our results suggest that BMI may function as a potential protective factor for BMD (ß = 0.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09, P = 0.01). However, when treating LDL as the exposure and BMD as the outcome, our findings indicate LDL as a risk factor for BMD (ß = -0.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.99, P = 0.04). In our multivariate Mendelian randomization (MVMR) model, the combined influence of BMI and LDL was used as the exposure for BMD outcomes. The analysis pointed towards a substantial protective effect of LDL on BMD (ß = 0.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.006). In the analysis of mediation effects, LDL was found to mediate the relationship between BMI and BMD, and the effect was calculated at (ß = 0.05, 95% CI 1.052 to 1.048, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that BMI may be considered a protective factor for BMD, while LDL may act as a risk factor. Moreover, LDL appears to play a mediatory role in the causal influence of BMI on BMD.

The effectiveness of fire needle therapy in the treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is common in clinical practice and imposes both physical and psychological distress on patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of fire needle therapy for the treatment of RAS, providing a basis for clinical decision-making. METHODS: Eight databases, in both Chinese and English, were searched from their inception until December 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that utilized fire needle therapy, either alone or combined with other treatments for RAS, were considered. Data evaluation and extraction were conducted independently by 2 authors. RESULTS: The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Version 2 tool was employed to assess the risk of bias in the included RCTs. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 15.0. Nine RCTs involving 1469 patients were selected for inclusion. The meta-analysis revealed that, compared to a non-fire-needle control group (primarily utilizing vitamin and transfer factor treatments), fire needle therapy for RAS significantly improved the total effective rate (relative risk = 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.14, 1.36], P < .00001), reduced the visual analogue scale score (mean difference = -1.68, 95% CI [-1.82, -1.53], P < .0001), diminished the Traditional Chinese Medicine symptom score (standardized mean difference = -1.20, 95% CI [-1.76, -0.65], P < .0001), and shortened the healing time (mean difference = -1.66, 95% CI [-2.73, -0.59], P = .002). Notably, there was no significant difference in the recurrence rate between the groups (relative risk = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.01], P = .06). Further subgroup analysis on total efficacy rate was performed based on variables such as experimental group intervention, control group intervention, and duration of therapy to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Fire needle therapy appears to be a clinically effective treatment for RAS, offering benefits such as pain alleviation, symptom improvement based on the Traditional Chinese Medicine parameters, and faster recovery. Nonetheless, the overall quality of the RCTs available raises concerns. Future research, involving high-quality RCTs, is essential to confirm the clinical efficacy and safety of this treatment. Registration number: PROSPERO (CRD42023387973).