Giovanni Corrao

BACKGROUND: Alcohol is a risk factor for cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx, oesophagus, colorectum, liver, larynx and female breast, whereas its impact on other cancers remains controversial. METHODS: We investigated the effect of alcohol on 23 cancer types through a meta-analytic approach. We used dose-response meta-regression models and investigated potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 572 studies, including 486 538 cancer cases, were identified. Relative risks (RRs) for heavy drinkers compared with nondrinkers and occasional drinkers were 5.13 for oral and pharyngeal cancer, 4.95 for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, 1.44 for colorectal, 2.65 for laryngeal and 1.61 for breast cancer; for those neoplasms there was a clear dose-risk relationship. Heavy drinkers also had a significantly higher risk of cancer of the stomach (RR 1.21), liver (2.07), gallbladder (2.64), pancreas (1.19) and lung (1.15). There was indication of a positive association between alcohol consumption and risk of melanoma and prostate cancer. Alcohol consumption and risk of Hodgkin's and Non-Hodgkin's lymphomas were inversely associated. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol increases risk of cancer of oral cavity and pharynx, oesophagus, colorectum, liver, larynx and female breast. There is accumulating evidence that alcohol drinking is associated with some other cancers such as pancreas and prostate cancer and melanoma.

BACKGROUND: A potential association between the use of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has not been well studied. METHODS: We carried out a population-based case-control study in the Lombardy region of Italy. A total of 6272 case patients in whom infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was confirmed between February 21 and March 11, 2020, were matched to 30,759 beneficiaries of the Regional Health Service (controls) according to sex, age, and municipality of residence. Information about the use of selected drugs and patients' clinical profiles was obtained from regional databases of health care use. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between drugs and infection, with adjustment for confounders, were estimated by means of logistic regression. RESULTS: Among both case patients and controls, the mean (±SD) age was 68±13 years, and 37% were women. The use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs was more common among case patients than among controls, as was the use of other antihypertensive and non-antihypertensive drugs, and case patients had a worse clinical profile. Use of ARBs or ACE inhibitors did not show any association with Covid-19 among case patients overall (adjusted odds ratio, 0.95 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.86 to 1.05] for ARBs and 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07] for ACE inhibitors) or among patients who had a severe or fatal course of the disease (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.10] for ARBs and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.21] for ACE inhibitors), and no association between these variables was found according to sex. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, population-based study, the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs was more frequent among patients with Covid-19 than among controls because of their higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease. However, there was no evidence that ACE inhibitors or ARBs affected the risk of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Studies in hypertensive patients suggest that ambulatory blood pressure (BP) is prognostically superior to office BP. Much less information is available in the general population, however. Obtaining this information was the purpose of the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Office, home, and 24-hour ambulatory BP values were obtained in 2051 subjects between 25 and 74 years of age who were representative of the general population of Monza (Milan, Italy). Subjects were followed up for an average of 131 months, during which time cardiovascular and noncardiovascular fatal events were recorded (n=186). Office, home, and ambulatory BP values showed a significant exponential direct relationship with risk of cardiovascular or all-cause death. The goodness of fit of the relationship was greater for systolic than for diastolic BP and for night than for day BP, but its overall value was not better for home or ambulatory than for office BP. The slope of the relationship, however, was progressively greater from office to home and ambulatory BP. Home and night BP modestly improved the goodness of fit of the risk model when added to office BP. CONCLUSIONS: In the PAMELA population, risk of death increased more with a given increase in home or ambulatory than in office BP. The overall ability to predict death, however, was not greater for home and ambulatory than for office BP, although it was somewhat increased by the combination of office and outside-of-office values. Systolic BP was almost invariably superior to diastolic BP, and night BP was superior to day BP.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate parameters of the function relating alcohol consumption with the risk of coronary heart disease and to identify the sources of heterogeneity in the parameter estimates. METHODS: A search of the epidemiological literature from 1966 to 1998 was performed using several bibliographic databases. Meta-regression models were fitted to evaluate non-linear effects of alcohol intake on the relative risk. The effects of some characteristics of the studies, including an index of their quality, were considered as putative sources of heterogeneity of the estimates. Publication bias was also investigated. FINDINGS: Among the 196 initially reviewed articles, 51 were selected. Since qualitative characteristics of the studies were significant sources of heterogeneity, the pooled dose-response functions were based on the 28 cohort studies with higher quality. Risk decreased from 0 to 20 g/day (RR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.83); there was evidence of a protective effect up to 72 g/day (RR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.00) and increased risk above > or = 89 g/day (RR = 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.11). Lower protective effects and harmful effects were found in women, in men living in countries outside the Mediterranean area and in studies where fatal events were used as the outcome. Evidence of publication bias for moderate intakes and of heterogeneity of the estimates across studies for higher intakes were found. CONCLUSIONS: The degree of protection from moderate doses of alcohol should be reconsidered. Further research investigating the effect of drinking patterns on the risk of coronary heart disease should be performed. Caution in making general recommendations is needed.

To evaluate the strength of the evidence provided by the epidemiological literature on the association between alcohol consumption and the risk of 18 neoplasms, we performed a search of the epidemiological literature from 1966 to 2000 using several bibliographic databases. Meta-regression models were fitted considering linear and non-linear effects of alcohol intake. The effects of characteristics of the studies, of selected covariates (tobacco) and of the gender of individuals included in the studies, were also investigated as putative sources of heterogeneity of the estimates. A total of 235 studies including over 117 000 cases were considered. Strong trends in risk were observed for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, oesophagus and larynx. Less strong direct relations were observed for cancers of the stomach, colon and rectum, liver, breast and ovary. For all these diseases, significant increased risks were found also for ethanol intake of 25 g per day. No significant nor consistent relation was observed for cancers of the pancreas, lung, prostate or bladder. Allowance for tobacco appreciably modified the relations with laryngeal, lung and bladder cancers, but not those with oral, oesophageal or colorectal cancers. This meta-analysis showed no evidence of a threshold effect for most alcohol-related neoplasms. The inference is limited by absence of distinction between lifelong abstainers and former drinkers in several studies, and the possible selective inclusion of relevant sites only in cohort studies.