Search

Background: Culinary interventions (cooking classes) have been used to improve the quality of dietary intake and change behavior. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effects of culinary interventions on dietary intake and behavioral and cardiometabolic outcomes., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus for comparative studies that evaluated culinary interventions to a control group or baseline values. The intervention was defined as a cooking class regardless of its length or delivery approach. Studies included populations of children, healthy adults or adults with morbidities. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Outcomes were pooled using the random-effects model and descriptive statistics and depicted in an evidence map. Simple logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with intervention success., Results: We included 30 studies (6 were randomized, 7381 patients, average follow up 25 weeks). Culinary interventions were not associated with a significant change in body mass index (- 0.07 kg/m 2 , 95% CI: -1.53, 1.40), systolic (- 5.31 mmHg, 95% CI: -34.2, 23.58) or diastolic blood pressure (- 3.1 mmHg, 95% CI: -23.82, 17.62) or LDL cholesterol (- 8.09 mg/dL, 95% CI: -84.43, 68.25). Culinary interventions were associated with improved attitudes, self-efficacy and healthy dietary intake in adults and children. We were unable to demonstrate whether the effect of a culinary intervention was modified by various characteristics of the intervention such as its delivery or intensity. Interventions with additional components such as education on nutrition, physical activity or gardening were particularly effective., Conclusions: Culinary interventions were not associated with a significant change in cardiometabolic risk factors, but were associated with improved attitudes, self-efficacy and a healthier dietary intake in adults and children., Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s). 2019.)

Background: Hypomethylating agents (HMA), azacitidine, and decitabine are frequently used in the management of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, there are no clinical trials that have directly compared these agents. We conducted a systematic review and indirectly compared the efficacy of azacitidine to decitabine in MDS., Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus) through June 28, 2018, without language or time restrictions. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers, and differences were resolved by consensus. The fixed effect model and adjusted indirect comparison methods were used to pool relative risks (RR) of major outcomes of interest (mortality, response rate, quality of life, hematologic improvement, hospitalization, leukemia transformation, transfusion independence)., Results: Only four trials met the eligibility criteria. Two trials compared azacitidine to the best supportive care (BSC) and included 549 patients, and the other two compared decitabine to BSC and included 403 patients. The risk of bias was unclear overall. Compared to BSC, azacitidine was significantly associated with lower mortality (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.94, I 2  = 89%) whereas decitabine did not significantly reduce mortality (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-1.00, I 2  = 53%). Both drugs were associated with higher partial and complete response compared to BSC. Indirect comparisons were not statistically significant for all the studied outcomes, except for complete response where azacitidine was less likely to induce complete response compared to decitabine (RR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.01-0.86, very low-certainty evidence)., Conclusions: Azacitidine and decitabine are both associated with improved outcomes compared to BSC. The available indirect evidence comparing the two agents warrants very low certainty and cannot reliably confirm the superiority of either agent. Head-to-head trials are needed. In the meantime, the choice of agent should be driven by patient preferences, adverse effects, drug availability, and cost.