D-glucitol

• 6-Minute Walk Test improvement

  no effect, p = 0.38

  6MWT (m) | 9.0 (8.3) | 6.2 (8.3) | 6.4 (9.4) | 9.9 (6.9) | −2.4 (−6.2;1.5) | 0.85 | −2.4 (−6.6;2.0) | 0.82 | 0.7 (−3.2;4.7) | 0.38 | 0.11 | 0.16

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• 6-Minute Walk Test improvement

  no effect, p = 0.099

  6MWT (m) | 7.1 (8.6) | 9.9 (6.9) | 2.6 (−0.73;6.1) | 0.099

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• 9-Hole Peg Test improvement

  no effect, p = 0.47

  9HPT (s) | 4.9 (11.4) | −1.2 (11.7) | 5.6 (9.9) | 7.8 (12.1) | −4.6 (−10.3;1.5) | 0.89 | −0.2 (−5.3;5.2) | 0.52 | 0.3 (−5.7;6.6) | 0.47 | 0.15 | 0.092

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• 9-Hole Peg Test improvement

  no effect, p = 0.33

  9HPT (s) | 3.1 (11.3) | 7.8 (12.1) | 1.2 (−3.4;6.0) | 0.33

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Ankle dorsiflexion strength improvement

  no effect, p = 0.28

  Ankle Dorsiflexion (Nm) | 20.2 (88.4) | −3.6 (43.0) | 81.5 (369.6) | 20.4 (64.1) | −4.0 (−21.7;17.8) | 0.63 | 11.4 (−15.4;46.8) | 0.26 | 8.2 (−13.8;35.9) | 0.28 | 0.11 | 0.16

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Ankle dorsiflexion strength improvement

  no effect, p = 0.32

  Ankle Dorsiflexion (Nm) | 33.1 (223.2) | 20.4 (64.1) | 5.5 (−12.8;27.7) | 0.32

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• CMAP amplitude improvement

  no effect, p = 0.63

  CMAP (milliV) | 34.4 (62.0) | 1.4 (38.7) | 22.9 (62.6) | 64.2 (208.5) | −25.1 (−44.8;1.5) | 0.94 | −9.2 (−27.3;13.5) | 0.77 | −5.1 (−27.1;23.6) | 0.63 | −0.001 | 0.50

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• CMAP amplitude improvement

  no effect, p = 0.33

  CMAP (milliV) | 19.6 (56.5) | 64.2 (208.5) | 6.6 (−15.8;35.1) | 0.33

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• CMTNS and ONLS combined treatment effect (O’Brien OLS)

  increases, p = 0.036

  The significance of the treatment effect on CMTNS and ONLS, assessed through the multiple endpoints O’Brien’s OLS test, confirmed the improvement of the HD group compared to Placebo (P = 0.036) and PLI (P = 0.0049)

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• CMTNS and ONLS combined treatment effect (O’Brien OLS)

  increases, p = 0.0049

  The significance of the treatment effect on CMTNS and ONLS, assessed through the multiple endpoints O’Brien’s OLS test, confirmed the improvement of the HD group compared to Placebo (P = 0.036) and PLI (P = 0.0049)

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• CMTNS improvement

  no effect, p = 0.16

  CMTNS | 2.6 (17.5) | 0.5 (23.2) | −3.1 (16.0) | 7.7 (18.4) | −2.6 (−11.9;7.6) | 0.67 | −3.1 (−11.0;5.4) | 0.74 | 5.5 (−3.4;15.2) | 0.16 | 0.54 | 0.30

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• CMTNS improvement

  no effect, p = 0.74

  CMTNS | 2.6 (17.5) | 0.5 (23.2) | −3.1 (16.0) | 7.7 (18.4) | −2.6 (−11.9;7.6) | 0.67 | −3.1 (−11.0;5.4) | 0.74 | 5.5 (−3.4;15.2) | 0.16 | 0.54 | 0.30

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• CMTNS improvement

  no effect, p = 0.67

  CMTNS | 2.6 (17.5) | 0.5 (23.2) | −3.1 (16.0) | 7.7 (18.4) | −2.6 (−11.9;7.6) | 0.67 | −3.1 (−11.0;5.4) | 0.74 | 5.5 (−3.4;15.2) | 0.16 | 0.54 | 0.30

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• CMTNS improvement

  no effect, p = 0.3

  CMTNS | 2.6 (17.5) | 0.5 (23.2) | −3.1 (16.0) | 7.7 (18.4) | −2.6 (−11.9;7.6) | 0.67 | −3.1 (−11.0;5.4) | 0.74 | 5.5 (−3.4;15.2) | 0.16 | 0.54 | 0.30

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• CMTNS improvement

  increases, p = 0.042

  CMTNS | −0.1 (19.0) | 7.7 (18.4) | 8.0 (0.4;16.2) | 0.042*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Compliance with study drug

  mean (s.d.) duration of exposure overall was 11.69 (1.53) months and was similar among the four groups, and mean (s.d.) compliance with study drug was 97.3 (9.41%)

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Distal motor latency improvement

  increases, p = 0.038

  DML (ms) | 0.4 (8.8) | 3.6 (21.7) | 15.3 (35.8) | 8.4 (21.7) | 3.4 (−4.3;11.7) | 0.24 | 13.8 (4.2;24.3) | 0.009* | 8.0 (0.59;16.0) | 0.038* | 0.21 | 0.035*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Distal motor latency improvement

  increases, p = 0.009

  DML (ms) | 0.4 (8.8) | 3.6 (21.7) | 15.3 (35.8) | 8.4 (21.7) | 3.4 (−4.3;11.7) | 0.24 | 13.8 (4.2;24.3) | 0.009* | 8.0 (0.59;16.0) | 0.038* | 0.21 | 0.035*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Distal motor latency improvement

  no effect, p = 0.24

  DML (ms) | 0.4 (8.8) | 3.6 (21.7) | 15.3 (35.8) | 8.4 (21.7) | 3.4 (−4.3;11.7) | 0.24 | 13.8 (4.2;24.3) | 0.009* | 8.0 (0.59;16.0) | 0.038* | 0.21 | 0.035*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Distal motor latency improvement

  increases, p = 0.035

  DML (ms) | 0.4 (8.8) | 3.6 (21.7) | 15.3 (35.8) | 8.4 (21.7) | 3.4 (−4.3;11.7) | 0.24 | 13.8 (4.2;24.3) | 0.009* | 8.0 (0.59;16.0) | 0.038* | 0.21 | 0.035*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Distal motor latency improvement

  no effect, p = 0.31

  DML (ms) | 6.7 (25.6) | 8.4 (21.7) | 2.2 (−5.1;10.0) | 0.31

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Duration of exposure

  mean (s.d.) duration of exposure overall was 11.69 (1.53) months and was similar among the four groups, and mean (s.d.) compliance with study drug was 97.3 (9.41%)

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Four functional measures combined treatment effect (O’Brien OLS)

  no effect, p = 0.051

  The global significance of the treatment effect on the four functional measures taken together with O’Brien OLS test also confirmed an improvement in the HD group compared to PLI (P = 0.051)

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Hand grip strength improvement

  no effect, p = 0.39

  Grip (kg) | 9.9 (24.2) | 1.3 (15.6) | 4.7 (12.5) | 11.7 (18.1) | −7.1 (−15.6;2.1) | 0.90 | −3.6 (−11.8;5.4) | 0.75 | 1.6 (−7.7;11.9) | 0.39 | 0.12 | 0.15

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Hand grip strength improvement

  no effect, p = 0.088

  Grip (kg) | 5.1 (17.9) | 11.7 (18.1) | 6.0 (−1.2;13.7) | 0.088

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• incidence of related treatment-emergent adverse events (primary); CMTNS and ONLS neuropathy scores, 6MWT, 9HPT, grip, nerve conduction parameters (secondary)

  no effect, TEAEs 47% placebo, 23% LD, 33% ID, 31% HD, p = 0.48

  Not recorded as a finding: the intervention held more than the compound

  The percentage of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) after one year was similar across treatment groups (47% in Placebo, 23% in LD, 33% in ID, 31% in HD, P = 0.48).

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Motor conduction velocity improvement

  no effect, p = 0.23

  MCV (m/s) | 3.7 (8.5) | 3.0 (11.5) | 5.7 (12.3) | 9.0 (17.6) | −1.0 (−6.5;4.9) | 0.61 | 0.5 (−4.8;6.2) | 0.44 | 2.8 (−3.4;9.4) | 0.23 | 0.11 | 0.18

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Motor conduction velocity improvement

  no effect, p = 0.21

  MCV (m/s) | 4.2 (10.9) | 9.0 (17.6) | 2.5 (−2.4;7.7) | 0.21

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• ONLS improvement

  increases, p = 0.043

  ONLS | −5.3 (19.3) | −6.5 (18.5) | 4.8 (24.2) | 12.3 (28.4) | −3.9 (−14.2;7.6) | 0.72 | 6.9 (−3.8;18.8) | 0.15 | 14.4 (0.55;30.2) | 0.043* | 0.28 | 0.006*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• ONLS improvement

  no effect, p = 0.15

  ONLS | −5.3 (19.3) | −6.5 (18.5) | 4.8 (24.2) | 12.3 (28.4) | −3.9 (−14.2;7.6) | 0.72 | 6.9 (−3.8;18.8) | 0.15 | 14.4 (0.55;30.2) | 0.043* | 0.28 | 0.006*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• ONLS improvement

  no effect, p = 0.72

  ONLS | −5.3 (19.3) | −6.5 (18.5) | 4.8 (24.2) | 12.3 (28.4) | −3.9 (−14.2;7.6) | 0.72 | 6.9 (−3.8;18.8) | 0.15 | 14.4 (0.55;30.2) | 0.043* | 0.28 | 0.006*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• ONLS improvement

  increases, p = 0.006

  ONLS | −5.3 (19.3) | −6.5 (18.5) | 4.8 (24.2) | 12.3 (28.4) | −3.9 (−14.2;7.6) | 0.72 | 6.9 (−3.8;18.8) | 0.15 | 14.4 (0.55;30.2) | 0.043* | 0.28 | 0.006*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• ONLS improvement

  increases, p = 0.024

  ONLS | −2.2 (21.2) | 12.3 (28.4) | 12.1 (2.0;23.2) | 0.024*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Proportion of non-deteriorated patients, relative risk

  increases, p = 0.047

  1.5 (1.03;1.77) | 0.047* | 1.66 (1.24;1.93) | 0.010*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Proportion of non-deteriorated patients, relative risk

  increases, p = 0.01

  1.5 (1.03;1.77) | 0.047* | 1.66 (1.24;1.93) | 0.010*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Proportion of non-deteriorated patients

  increases

  Non-deteriorated | 10 (52%) | 10 (48%) | 9 (43%) | 15 (79%) | Relative Risk | P-value | Relative Risk | P-value

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Sensory conduction velocity improvement

  increases, p = 0.00037

  SCV (m/s) | 3.4 (11.0) | 5.3 (11.2) | 29.5 (63.4) | 30.5 (10.0) | 1.5 (−5.8;9.4) | 0.36 | 17.5 (−5.5;46.2) | 0.11† | 26.6 (15.5;38.8) | 0.00037* | 0.42 | 0.01*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Sensory conduction velocity improvement

  no effect, p = 0.11

  SCV (m/s) | 3.4 (11.0) | 5.3 (11.2) | 29.5 (63.4) | 30.5 (10.0) | 1.5 (−5.8;9.4) | 0.36 | 17.5 (−5.5;46.2) | 0.11† | 26.6 (15.5;38.8) | 0.00037* | 0.42 | 0.01*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Sensory conduction velocity improvement

  no effect, p = 0.36

  SCV (m/s) | 3.4 (11.0) | 5.3 (11.2) | 29.5 (63.4) | 30.5 (10.0) | 1.5 (−5.8;9.4) | 0.36 | 17.5 (−5.5;46.2) | 0.11† | 26.6 (15.5;38.8) | 0.00037* | 0.42 | 0.01*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Sensory conduction velocity improvement

  increases, p = 0.01

  SCV (m/s) | 3.4 (11.0) | 5.3 (11.2) | 29.5 (63.4) | 30.5 (10.0) | 1.5 (−5.8;9.4) | 0.36 | 17.5 (−5.5;46.2) | 0.11† | 26.6 (15.5;38.8) | 0.00037* | 0.42 | 0.01*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Sensory conduction velocity improvement

  increases, p = 0.03

  SCV (m/s) | 12.7 (38.0) | 30.5 (10.0) | 20.1 (2.4;40.8) | 0.030*

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Sensory nerve action potential improvement

  no effect, p = 0.29

  SNAP (microV) | 12.4 (121.7) | 11.5 (88.2) | 23.3 (128.4) | 5.2 (69.0) | −1.2 (−42.9;71.0) | 0.52 | 8.7 (−31.2;71.6) | 0.38 | 13.9 (−24.1;71.0) | 0.29 | 0.09 | 0.30

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Sensory nerve action potential improvement

  no effect, p = 0.31

  SNAP (microV) | 15.9 (110.2) | 5.2 (69.0) | 12.0 (−23.9;64.9) | 0.31

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Treatment-emergent adverse events, percentage of patients

  no effect, p = 0.48

  The percentage of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) after one year was similar across treatment groups (47% in Placebo, 23% in LD, 33% in ID, 31% in HD, P = 0.48)

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Withdrawal before completion

  Only seven patients (8.7%) left the study before completion

  PMID:25519680 · one of two readings recorded this

• Age of cases

  The mean age of the confirmed cases was 8.5 years (range: 1–36), half of them were male, 13 developed HUS and needed intensive care treatment; one patient died

  PMID:28597831 · one of two readings recorded this

• Age of cases

  Twelve of the 15 possible cases developed HUS and three had gastroenteritis; the mean age of the possible cases was 26 years (range: 0–83) and seven were male

  PMID:28597831 · one of two readings recorded this

• Illness association with consumption of heated minced meat

  no effect, p = 0.096

  Heated minced meat | 6/7 | 86 | 19/33 | 58 | 5.5 | 0.6–52.9 | 0.096

  PMID:28597831 · one of two readings recorded this

• Illness association with consumption of heated mixed minced meat (beef and pork)

  increases, p = 0.015

  Heated mixed minced meat (beef and pork) | 6/6 | 100 | 9/23 | 40 | NC | NA | 0.015

  PMID:28597831 · one of two readings recorded this

• Illness association with consumption of raw minced meat

  no effect, p = 0.637

  Raw minced meat | 1/8 | 13 | 5/34 | 15 | 2.1 | 0.09–49.2 | 0.637

  PMID:28597831 · one of two readings recorded this

• Illness association with consumption of Vienna sausages

  no effect, p = 0.073

  Vienna sausages | 6/8 | 75 | 8/34 | 35 | 6.3 | 0.6–63.6 | 0.073

  PMID:28597831 · one of two readings recorded this

• Illness association with minced meat bought from supermarket chain X

  increases, p = 0.007

  Minced meat bought from supermarket chain X | 3/8 | 38 | 1/33 | 3 | 14.1 | 1.2–174.9 | 0.007

  PMID:28597831 · one of two readings recorded this

• Illness association with minced meat bought from supermarket chain Y

  no effect, p = 0.424

  Minced meat bought from supermarket chain Y | 2/7 | 29 | 6/35 | 17 | 2.0 | 0.4–10.4 | 0.424

  PMID:28597831 · one of two readings recorded this

• Illness association with preparing a minced meat dish in the household at least once a week

  increases, p = 0.009

  Preparation of dish with minced meat in the household (at least once a week versus less than once a week) | 7/9 | 78 | 11/35 | 31 | 8.6 | 1.2–60.6 | 0.009

  PMID:28597831 · one of two readings recorded this

• Illness association with shopping at supermarket chain X (always or mostly)

  no effect, p = 0.087

  Shopping at supermarket chain X (always or mostly) | 5/8 | 63 | 9/35 | 26 | 3.0 | 0.8–11.4 | 0.087

  PMID:28597831 · one of two readings recorded this

• Illness association with Vienna sausages bought from supermarket chain X

  no effect, p = 0.493

  Vienna sausages bought from supermarket chain X | 4/6 | 67 | 5/12 | 42 | 2.3 | 0.2–28.3 | 0.493

  PMID:28597831 · one of two readings recorded this

• Illness association with Vienna sausages bought from supermarket chain Y

  no effect, p = 0.683

  Vienna sausages bought from supermarket chain Y | 1/6 | 17 | 3/12 | 25 | 0.5 | 0.02–14.9 | 0.683

  PMID:28597831 · one of two readings recorded this

• Outbreak case count

  As at 22 May 2017, 30 cases, including one family cluster (n = 4), meet the outbreak case definition (Box): 14 confirmed, one probable and 15 possible cases have been reported

  PMID:28597831 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-24 change with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  decreases of 20%, 39%, and 44% in AUC0‐24, and 14%, 32%, and 36% in AUC0‐∞, respectively

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-24 change with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  decreases of 20%, 39%, and 44% in AUC0‐24, and 14%, 32%, and 36% in AUC0‐∞, respectively

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-24 change with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  decreases of 20%, 39%, and 44% in AUC0‐24, and 14%, 32%, and 36% in AUC0‐∞, respectively

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-24 ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  AUC0‐24 a | 0.803 (0.747, 0.864) | 0.608 (0.566, 0.655) | 0.557 (0.518, 0.599)

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-24 ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  AUC0‐24 a | 0.803 (0.747, 0.864) | 0.608 (0.566, 0.655) | 0.557 (0.518, 0.599)

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-24 ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  AUC0‐24 a | 0.803 (0.747, 0.864) | 0.608 (0.566, 0.655) | 0.557 (0.518, 0.599)

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-inf change with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  decreases of 20%, 39%, and 44% in AUC0‐24, and 14%, 32%, and 36% in AUC0‐∞, respectively

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-inf change with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  decreases of 20%, 39%, and 44% in AUC0‐24, and 14%, 32%, and 36% in AUC0‐∞, respectively

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-inf change with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  decreases of 20%, 39%, and 44% in AUC0‐24, and 14%, 32%, and 36% in AUC0‐∞, respectively

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-inf ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  AUC0‐∞ | 0.855 (0.799, 0.914) b | 0.677 (0.635, 0.721) | 0.637 (0.594, 0.682) c

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-inf ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  AUC0‐∞ | 0.855 (0.799, 0.914) b | 0.677 (0.635, 0.721) | 0.637 (0.594, 0.682) c

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-inf ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  AUC0‐∞ | 0.855 (0.799, 0.914) b | 0.677 (0.635, 0.721) | 0.637 (0.594, 0.682) c

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-t ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  AUC0‐t | 0.819 (0.766, 0.876) | 0.636 (0.595, 0.680) | 0.585 (0.548, 0.626)

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-t ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  AUC0‐t | 0.819 (0.766, 0.876) | 0.636 (0.595, 0.680) | 0.585 (0.548, 0.626)

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine AUC0-t ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  AUC0‐t | 0.819 (0.766, 0.876) | 0.636 (0.595, 0.680) | 0.585 (0.548, 0.626)

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine CL/F change with sorbitol

  increases, n = 16

  Lamivudine CL/F increased by 17%, 48%, and 57% corresponding to increasing sorbitol doses

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine CL/F change with sorbitol

  increases, n = 16

  Lamivudine CL/F increased by 17%, 48%, and 57% corresponding to increasing sorbitol doses

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine CL/F change with sorbitol

  increases, n = 16

  Lamivudine CL/F increased by 17%, 48%, and 57% corresponding to increasing sorbitol doses

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine CL/F ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  increases, n = 16

  CL/F | 1.17 (1.09, 1.25) b | 1.48 (1.39, 1.58) | 1.57 (1.47, 1.68) c

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine CL/F ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  increases, n = 16

  CL/F | 1.17 (1.09, 1.25) b | 1.48 (1.39, 1.58) | 1.57 (1.47, 1.68) c

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine CL/F ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  increases, n = 16

  CL/F | 1.17 (1.09, 1.25) b | 1.48 (1.39, 1.58) | 1.57 (1.47, 1.68) c

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine Cmax change with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  decreases of 28%, 52%, and 55% observed after treatment with sorbitol 3.2, 10.2, and 13.4 g, respectively

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine Cmax change with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  decreases of 28%, 52%, and 55% observed after treatment with sorbitol 3.2, 10.2, and 13.4 g, respectively

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine Cmax change with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  decreases of 28%, 52%, and 55% observed after treatment with sorbitol 3.2, 10.2, and 13.4 g, respectively

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine Cmax ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  C max | 0.724 (0.657, 0.798) | 0.479 (0.434, 0.527) | 0.454 (0.412, 0.500)

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine Cmax ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  C max | 0.724 (0.657, 0.798) | 0.479 (0.434, 0.527) | 0.454 (0.412, 0.500)

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine Cmax ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  decreases, n = 16

  C max | 0.724 (0.657, 0.798) | 0.479 (0.434, 0.527) | 0.454 (0.412, 0.500)

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine t1/2 ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  increases, n = 16

  t1/2 | 1.37 (1.11, 1.69) b | 1.53 (1.25, 1.88) | 1.29 (1.04, 1.61) c

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine t1/2 ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  increases, n = 16

  t1/2 | 1.37 (1.11, 1.69) b | 1.53 (1.25, 1.88) | 1.29 (1.04, 1.61) c

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lamivudine t1/2 ratio of GLS means, alone vs with sorbitol

  increases, n = 16

  t1/2 | 1.37 (1.11, 1.69) b | 1.53 (1.25, 1.88) | 1.29 (1.04, 1.61) c

  PMID:29150845 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, ALR2 rs759853 CC genotype

  increases, p = 0.01

  The CC genotype was present at 38.3% of the cases, compared to 31.3% of the controls (OR=1.46, 95% CI=1.25–1.70, P<0.01)

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, ALR2 rs759853 CT genotype

  increases, p = 0.01

  Among NPDR, the CT and TT genotypes of ALR2 rs759853 polymorphism conferred an OR of 1.37 (95% CI=1.13–1.65, P<0.01) and 1.69 (95% CI=1.15–2.47, P=0.01) respectively

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, ALR2 rs759853 CT genotype

  increases, p = 0.01

  The magnitude of association was larger among PDR, with an OR of 1.56 (95% CI=1.29–1.89, P<0.01) and 2.17 (95% CI=1.44–3.26, P<0.01) respectively

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, ALR2 rs759853 TT genotype

  increases, p = 0.01

  whereas the TT genotype was present in 7.6% of the cases, compared to 4.7% of the controls (OR=1.90, 95% CI=1.40–2.60, P<0.01)

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, ALR2 rs759853 TT genotype

  increases, p = 0.01

  Among NPDR, the CT and TT genotypes of ALR2 rs759853 polymorphism conferred an OR of 1.37 (95% CI=1.13–1.65, P<0.01) and 1.69 (95% CI=1.15–2.47, P=0.01) respectively

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, ALR2 rs759853 TT genotype

  increases, p = 0.01

  The magnitude of association was larger among PDR, with an OR of 1.56 (95% CI=1.29–1.89, P<0.01) and 2.17 (95% CI=1.44–3.26, P<0.01) respectively

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, SDH rs2055858 CG genotype

  decreases, p = 0.01

  Among the cases, 46.7% had the CG genotype. In comparison, 51.4% of the controls had the same genotype (OR=0.51, 95% CI=0.43–0.61, P<0.01)

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, SDH rs2055858 CG genotype

  decreases, p = 0.01

  For SDH rs2055858, the CG and GG genotypes respectively conferred an OR of 0.50 (95% CI=0.40–0.63, P<0.01) and 0.32 (95% CI=0.25–0.41, P<0.01) for NPDR, and an OR of 0.52 (95% CI=0.42–0.65, P<0.01) and 0.37 (95% CI=0.28–0.47, P<0.01) for PDR

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, SDH rs2055858 CG genotype

  decreases, p = 0.01

  For SDH rs2055858, the CG and GG genotypes respectively conferred an OR of 0.50 (95% CI=0.40–0.63, P<0.01) and 0.32 (95% CI=0.25–0.41, P<0.01) for NPDR, and an OR of 0.52 (95% CI=0.42–0.65, P<0.01) and 0.37 (95% CI=0.28–0.47, P<0.01) for PDR

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, SDH rs2055858 GG genotype

  decreases, p = 0.01

  Besides, only 17.3% of the cases had GG genotype compared to 28.3% in the controls (OR=0.34, 95% CI=0.28–0.42, P<0.01)

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, SDH rs2055858 GG genotype

  decreases, p = 0.01

  For SDH rs2055858, the CG and GG genotypes respectively conferred an OR of 0.50 (95% CI=0.40–0.63, P<0.01) and 0.32 (95% CI=0.25–0.41, P<0.01) for NPDR, and an OR of 0.52 (95% CI=0.42–0.65, P<0.01) and 0.37 (95% CI=0.28–0.47, P<0.01) for PDR

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, SDH rs2055858 GG genotype

  decreases, p = 0.01

  For SDH rs2055858, the CG and GG genotypes respectively conferred an OR of 0.50 (95% CI=0.40–0.63, P<0.01) and 0.32 (95% CI=0.25–0.41, P<0.01) for NPDR, and an OR of 0.52 (95% CI=0.42–0.65, P<0.01) and 0.37 (95% CI=0.28–0.47, P<0.01) for PDR

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, SDH rs3759890 CG genotype

  no effect, p = 0.4

  The CG genotype was present in 30.7% of the cases and 29.5% of the controls (P=0.40)

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diabetic retinopathy risk, SDH rs3759890 GG genotype

  no effect, p = 0.32

  whereas the GG genotype was present in 4.7% of the cases and 4.1% of the controls (P=0.32)

  PMID:31539366 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline pain assessment (VAS), PP population

  no effect, n = 197

  62.1 ± 13.7 for the HA1 group (N = 94) and 63.3 ± 14.1 for the HA2® group (N = 103)

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC function, PP population

  n = 93

  Synolis V-A® | 93 | 43.65 | 29.25; 56.56

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC function, PP population

  n = 103

  Synvisc one® | 103 | 44.85 | 28.00; 55.40

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC pain, PP population

  n = 94

  Synolis V-A® | 94 | 46.96 | 36.00; 58.00

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC pain, PP population

  n = 103

  Synvisc one® | 103 | 47.66 | 32.60; 60.80

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC stiffness, PP population

  n = 94

  Synolis V-A® | 94 | 48.08 | 32.00; 66.50

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC stiffness, PP population

  n = 103

  Synvisc one® | 103 | 47.99 | 27.50; 65.50

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in overall WOMAC pain score from Day 0 to Day 168 (PP)

  no effect, p = 0.5, n = 177

  overall WOMAC pain score of − 29.9 ± 23.3 (SD) in the HA1 group and − 31.2 ± 25.2 (SD) in the HA2 group, with no significant difference between the treatment groups (P = 0.5)

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in WOMAC pain (100 mm VAS) from Day 0 to Day 168, non-inferiority of Synolis VA (HA 80 mg + sorbitol 160 mg) versus Synvisc-One (hylan G-F20)

  intergroup difference -1.6 mm (95% CI -7.2, 4.0) in the PP dataset, p = 0.5, n = 177

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  The intergroup difference for the primary efficacy end point was − 1.6 mm (95% CI: -7.2, 4.0; P = 0.5) in the PP dataset.

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• Intergroup difference in WOMAC pain change at Day 168, HA1 minus HA2 (non-inferiority margin 8 mm)

  no effect, p = 0.5, n = 177

  The intergroup difference for the primary efficacy end point was − 1.6 mm (95% CI: -7.2, 4.0; P = 0.5)

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• Investigator assessment of treatment efficacy at Day 168

  no effect, p = 0.8

  92.9% for HA1 and 93.4% for HA2 (P = 0.8)

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• OMERACT-OARSI responder rate at Day 168

  no effect, p = 0.762

  At Day 168, the responder rates of HA1 and HA2 were 78.8% and 76.9%, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.762)

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patient-assessed global pain satisfaction at Day 168

  no effect, p = 0.9

  A total of 89.2% of HA1-treated patients and 88% of HA2-treated patients were satisfied with their treatment (P = 0.9)

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• WOMAC total score change from Day 0

  no effect

  The WOMAC total score difference compares Day 0 -27.24 and -27.53 for HA1 and HA2, respectively

  PMID:33723790 · one of two readings recorded this

• 10th percentile threshold of baseline WOMAC function, responders vs non-responders

  unclear, n = 96

  For baseline WOMAC function, the value corresponding to the 10th percentile was 18.76, showing significant difference between responders and non-responders to treatment at day 168 (p = 0.000)

  PMID:34680131 · one of two readings recorded this

• 10th percentile threshold of baseline WOMAC pain, responders vs non-responders

  unclear, p = 0.018, n = 96

  The value corresponding to the 10th percentile for baseline WOMAC pain was 26.8 (p-value comparing responders to non-responders equal to 0.018)

  PMID:34680131 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC function as independent predictor of response, separate multivariate model

  increases, p = 0.002, n = 96

  baseline WOMAC pain (p = 0.002) and baseline WOMAC function (p = 0.002) were found to be independently associated with response at day 168

  PMID:34680131 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC function as predictor of WOMAC function improvement, bivariate analysis

  increases, p = 0.034, n = 96

  baseline WOMAC function was the only predictor identified, both in bivariate analysis (p = 0.034) and in the multivariate model (p = 0.028)

  PMID:34680131 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC function as predictor of WOMAC function improvement, multivariate model

  increases, p = 0.028, n = 96

  baseline WOMAC function was the only predictor identified, both in bivariate analysis (p = 0.034) and in the multivariate model (p = 0.028)

  PMID:34680131 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC function score

  n = 96

  the mean WOMAC pain score at baseline was 46.68 ± 17.33 and the mean WOMAC function score was 43.12 ± 19.54

  PMID:34680131 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC function subscale as predictor of response, bivariate

  increases, n = 96

  baseline WOMAC pain (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.02–1.09) and WOMAC function (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.01–1.08) specific subscales variables

  PMID:34680131 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC pain as independent predictor of response, separate multivariate model

  increases, p = 0.002, n = 96

  baseline WOMAC pain (p = 0.002) and baseline WOMAC function (p = 0.002) were found to be independently associated with response at day 168

  PMID:34680131 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC pain score

  n = 96

  the mean WOMAC pain score at baseline was 46.68 ± 17.33 and the mean WOMAC function score was 43.12 ± 19.54

  PMID:34680131 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC pain subscale as predictor of response, bivariate

  increases, n = 96

  baseline WOMAC pain (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.02–1.09) and WOMAC function (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.01–1.08) specific subscales variables

  PMID:34680131 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC total as predictor of OMERACT-OARSI response, bivariate analysis

  increases, p = 0.003, n = 96

  both in bivariate analysis (p = 0.003) and in the multivariate model (p = 0.002) adjusted for age, sex and baseline BMI (Table 2)

  PMID:34680131 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline WOMAC total as predictor of OMERACT-OARSI response, multivariate model

  increases, p = 0.002, n = 96

  both in bivariate analysis (p = 0.003) and in the multivariate model (p = 0.002) adjusted for age, sex and baseline BMI (Table 2)

  PMID:34680131 · one of two readings recorded this

• Probability of response per one-point increase in baseline WOMAC total

  increases, n = 96

  for each increase of one point of WOMAC at baseline, the probability of being a responder was increased by 6%

  PMID:34680131 · one of two readings recorded this

• GSRS constipation and hard stools scores versus placebo

  decreases

  Prune juice intake showed significant differences in constipation and hard stools from the placebo group at week 8

  PMID:35971232 · one of two readings recorded this

• GSRS constipation, hard stools, incomplete evacuation and flatulence scores

  decreases

  In the prune juice group, constipation, hard stools, incomplete evacuation, and flatulence scores significantly decreased at week 4 or 8 (Table 2)

  PMID:35971232 · one of two readings recorded this

• GSRS diarrhea, loose stools and urgent need for defecation scores

  no effect

  Meanwhile, diarrhea, loose stools, and urgent need for defecation scores were not significantly changed from baseline

  PMID:35971232 · one of two readings recorded this

• Liver and renal function laboratory abnormalities

  no effect

  During the study period, there were no AEs or laboratory abnormalities of liver or renal function based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events definition between baseline and postintake period in either group (Table 1)

  PMID:35971232 · one of two readings recorded this

• rate of hard and lumpy stools (BSFS 1 or 2) and normal stools (BSFS 3 or 4) by Bristol Stool Form Scale; constipation and hard stool scores on the GSRS

  decreases, hard and lumpy stool rate significantly lower than placebo after 3 weeks

  Not recorded as a finding: the intervention held more than the compound

  In the prune juice group, the rates of hard and lumpy stools (BSFS 1 or 2) were significantly decreased from baseline and were significantly lower than the placebo group after 3 weeks.

  PMID:35971232 · one of two readings recorded this

• rate of hard and lumpy stools (BSFS 1 or 2) per week, Bristol Stool Form Scale recorded at each bowel movement

  decreases, hard and lumpy stool rate significantly decreased from baseline and significantly lower than placebo after 3 weeks, n = 84

  Not recorded as a finding: the intervention held more than the compound

  In the prune juice group, the rates of hard and lumpy stools (BSFS 1 or 2) were significantly decreased from baseline and were significantly lower than the placebo group after 3 weeks.

  PMID:35971232 · one of two readings recorded this

• Rate of hard and lumpy stools (BSFS 1 or 2)

  decreases

  In the prune juice group, the rates of hard and lumpy stools (BSFS 1 or 2) were significantly decreased from baseline and were significantly lower than the placebo group after 3 weeks

  PMID:35971232 · one of two readings recorded this

• Rate of loose and watery stools (BSFS 5, 6, or 7)

  no effect

  The rates of loose and watery stools (BSFS 5, 6, or 7) were not significantly changed during the study period

  PMID:35971232 · one of two readings recorded this

• Rate of normal stools (BSFS 3 or 4)

  increases

  The rates of normal stools (BSFS 3 or 4) were significantly increased from baseline and were significantly higher than the placebo group after 3 weeks

  PMID:35971232 · one of two readings recorded this

• Improvement in perceived bitterness of asenapine (7-point Likert, 1-3 = improved)

  decreases, p = 0.038, n = 20

  70% vs. 35%, respectively; p = 0.038, Cohen’s g = 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07, 0.48])

  PMID:38291403 · one of two readings recorded this

• Improvement in willingness to continue asenapine (5-point Likert, 1-2 = improved)

  no effect, p = 0.18, n = 20

  55% vs. 30%, respectively; p = 0.180, Cohen’s g = 0.28 [95%CI: –0.05, 0.44]

  PMID:38291403 · one of two readings recorded this

• Improvement in willingness to continue asenapine, D-sorbitol vs placebo

  no effect, p = 0.062, n = 12

  2 of 12 patients (12.5%) in accustomed group and in 5 of 8 patients (62.5%) in not accustomed group (p = 0.062, Cramér’s V = 0.42 [0.00, 0.96])

  PMID:38291403 · one of two readings recorded this

• Improvement in willingness to continue asenapine, D-sorbitol vs placebo

  unclear, p = 0.062, n = 8

  2 of 12 patients (12.5%) in accustomed group and in 5 of 8 patients (62.5%) in not accustomed group (p = 0.062, Cramér’s V = 0.42 [0.00, 0.96])

  PMID:38291403 · one of two readings recorded this

• perceived bitterness of sublingual asenapine, self-rated on a 7-point Likert scale, improved/non-improved, McNemar's test (primary); willingness to continue asenapine on a 5-point Likert scale (secondary)

  increases, 70% vs. 35% improved; Cohen's g = 0.39, p = 0.038, n = 20

  Not recorded as a finding: this platform holds no node for the endpoint

  Regarding the primary outcome, we observed a significant difference in the proportions of improvements in the perceived bitterness of asenapine between single-administration of d-sorbitol and placebo (70% vs. 35%, respectively; p = 0.038, Cohen’s g = 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07, 0.48]) (shown in Fig. 2A).

  PMID:38291403 · one of two readings recorded this

• perceived bitterness of sublingual asenapine, self-rated on a 7-point Likert scale, improvement defined as 1-3 points, McNemar's test

  improvement in perceived bitterness 70% vs 35%, Cohen's g = 0.39, p = 0.038, n = 20

  Not recorded as a finding: this platform holds no node for the endpoint

  Regarding the primary outcome, we observed a significant difference in the proportions of improvements in the perceived bitterness of asenapine between single-administration of d-sorbitol and placebo (70% vs. 35%, respectively; p = 0.038, Cohen’s g = 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07, 0.48]) (shown in Fig. 2A).

  PMID:38291403 · one of two readings recorded this

• BMI, erythritol Q4 vs Q1

  increases, p = 0.001

  BMI, kg/m2 | 762 | 26.9 | Ref. | −0.31 (0.56) | 0.59 | 0.31 (0.55) | 0.58 | 2.2 (0.52) | < 0.001 | < 0.001

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• BMI, erythritol Q4 vs Q1

  increases, p = 0.001

  BMI, kg/m2 | 762 | 25.6 | Ref. | 0.45 (0.45) | 0.32 | 0.82 (0.46) | 0.07 | 1.89 (0.46) | < 0.001 | < 0.001

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• BMI, erythritol Q4 vs Q1

  increases, p = 0.001

  BMI, kg/m2 | 1524 | 26.2 | Ref. | 0.1 (0.36) | 0.78 | 0.57 (0.36) | 0.11 | 2.06 (0.35) | < 0.001 | < 0.001

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• BMI, erythritol Q4 vs Q1

  increases, p = 0.004

  BMI, kg/m2 | 728 | 26.5 | Ref. | −0.16 (0.55) | 0.78 | −0.11 (0.55) | 0.84 | 1.62 (0.56) | 0.004 | 0.007

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  no effect

  Yes (1 or more tsp: mean 2 tsps.) | 245/234 | 0.99 (0.83, 1.18) | — | 1.01 (0.84, 1.21) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  no effect

  Yes | 108/126 | 1.07 (0.84, 1.36) | — | 1.10 (0.87, 1.40) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  increases

  No | 575/641 | 1.17 (1.04, 1.32) | — | 1.13 (1.02, 1.26) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  increases

  High | 366/377 | 1.26 (1.08, 1.47) | — | 1.05 (0.92, 1.21) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  increases

  High | 350/338 | 1.33 (1.12, 1.57) | — | 1.07 (0.93, 1.24) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  increases

  High | 367/388 | 1.19 (1.03, 1.37) | — | 1.18 (1.03, 1.35) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  increases

  Yes | 274/179 | 1.37 (1.14, 1.65) | — | 1.03 (0.86, 1.23) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  increases

  Low | 393/377 | 1.17 (1.01, 1.34) | — | 1.29 (1.12, 1.49) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  no effect

  Low | 403/406 | 1.12 (0.99, 1.28) | — | 1.23 (1.07, 1.41) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  increases

  Low | 386/356 | 1.22 (1.05, 1.42) | — | 1.12 (0.96, 1.29) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  increases

  No (0 tsp) | 517/528 | 1.32 (1.16, 1.51) | — | 1.23 (1.09, 1.38) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  no effect

  No (never or less than once per mo.) | 253/237 | 1.00 (0.85, 1.17) | — | 1.27 (1.05, 1.53) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  no effect

  No | 259/319 | 1.02 (0.85, 1.23) | — | 1.09 (0.93, 1.28) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  increases

  No | 320/405 | 1.22 (1.03, 1.44) | — | 1.12 (0.97, 1.29) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  no effect

  Yes | 106/27 | 1.08 (0.77, 1.51) | — | 1.00 (0.67, 1.51) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  increases

  Yes | 410/311 | 1.28 (1.09, 1.50) | — | 1.28 (1.09, 1.50) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  increases

  Yes | 448/291 | 1.28 (1.10, 1.49) | — | 1.33 (1.13, 1.56) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  no effect

  No | 656/735 | 1.07 (0.95, 1.19) | — | 1.12 (1.01, 1.25) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  no effect

  No | 352/451 | 1.14 (0.99, 1.30) | — | 1.11 (0.97, 1.26) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma erythritol

  no effect

  No | 314/471 | 1.08 (0.94, 1.24) | — | 1.02 (0.89, 1.17) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  no effect

  Yes (1 or more tsp: mean 2 tsps.) | 245/234 | 0.99 (0.83, 1.18) | — | 1.01 (0.84, 1.21) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  no effect

  Yes | 108/126 | 1.07 (0.84, 1.36) | — | 1.10 (0.87, 1.40) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  increases

  No | 575/641 | 1.17 (1.04, 1.32) | — | 1.13 (1.02, 1.26) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  no effect

  High | 366/377 | 1.26 (1.08, 1.47) | — | 1.05 (0.92, 1.21) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  no effect

  High | 350/338 | 1.33 (1.12, 1.57) | — | 1.07 (0.93, 1.24) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  increases

  High | 367/388 | 1.19 (1.03, 1.37) | — | 1.18 (1.03, 1.35) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  no effect

  Yes | 274/179 | 1.37 (1.14, 1.65) | — | 1.03 (0.86, 1.23) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  increases

  Low | 393/377 | 1.17 (1.01, 1.34) | — | 1.29 (1.12, 1.49) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  increases

  Low | 403/406 | 1.12 (0.99, 1.28) | — | 1.23 (1.07, 1.41) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  no effect

  Low | 386/356 | 1.22 (1.05, 1.42) | — | 1.12 (0.96, 1.29) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  increases

  No (0 tsp) | 517/528 | 1.32 (1.16, 1.51) | — | 1.23 (1.09, 1.38) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  increases

  No (never or less than once per mo.) | 253/237 | 1.00 (0.85, 1.17) | — | 1.27 (1.05, 1.53) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  no effect

  No | 259/319 | 1.02 (0.85, 1.23) | — | 1.09 (0.93, 1.28) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  no effect

  No | 320/405 | 1.22 (1.03, 1.44) | — | 1.12 (0.97, 1.29) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  no effect

  Yes | 106/27 | 1.08 (0.77, 1.51) | — | 1.00 (0.67, 1.51) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  increases

  Yes | 410/311 | 1.28 (1.09, 1.50) | — | 1.28 (1.09, 1.50) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  increases

  Yes | 448/291 | 1.28 (1.10, 1.49) | — | 1.33 (1.13, 1.56) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  increases

  No | 656/735 | 1.07 (0.95, 1.19) | — | 1.12 (1.01, 1.25) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  no effect

  No | 352/451 | 1.14 (0.99, 1.30) | — | 1.11 (0.97, 1.26) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• CHD risk per 1 SD plasma mannitol/sorbitol

  no effect

  No | 314/471 | 1.08 (0.94, 1.24) | — | 1.02 (0.89, 1.17) | —

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• Correlation between plasma erythritol and mannitol/sorbitol

  no effect, p = 0.06

  The Spearman’s partial correlation coefficient between erythritol and mannitol/sorbitol was 0.05 (P = 0.16) in the control group and 0.07 (P = 0.06) in the case group

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• Correlation between plasma erythritol and mannitol/sorbitol

  no effect, p = 0.16

  The Spearman’s partial correlation coefficient between erythritol and mannitol/sorbitol was 0.05 (P = 0.16) in the control group and 0.07 (P = 0.06) in the case group

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• Fat mass, erythritol Q4 vs Q1

  increases, p = 0.013

  Fat mass, kg | 728 | 28.1 | Ref. | 0.18 (1.13) | 0.87 | −0.71 (1.12) | 0.53 | 2.83 (1.13) | 0.013 | 0.036

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• HbA1c, erythritol Q4 vs Q1

  increases, p = 0.001

  HbA1c, % | 498 | 5.9 | Ref. | −0.05 (0.14) | 0.7 | 0.03 (0.13) | 0.8 | 0.84 (0.12) | < 0.001 | < 0.001

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• HbA1c, erythritol Q4 vs Q1

  increases, p = 0.001

  HbA1c, % | 491 | 5.6 | Ref. | 0.05 (0.07) | 0.47 | −0.01 (0.07) | 0.85 | 0.4 (0.07) | < 0.001 | < 0.001

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• HbA1c, erythritol Q4 vs Q1

  increases, p = 0.001

  HbA1c, % | 989 | 5.8 | Ref. | 0 (0.08) | 0.99 | −0.01 (0.07) | 0.93 | 0.65 (0.07) | < 0.001 | < 0.001

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• HDL cholesterol, erythritol Q4 vs Q1

  decreases, p = 0.044

  HDL cholesterol, mg/dL | 420 | 53 | Ref. | 1.51 (2.27) | 0.51 | 2.81 (2.16) | 0.19 | −4.17 (2.07) | 0.044 | 0.031

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• HDL cholesterol, erythritol Q4 vs Q1

  decreases, p = 0.015

  HDL cholesterol, mg/dL | 415 | 60 | Ref. | −4.2 (2.3) | 0.07 | −4.8 (2.4) | 0.04 | −5.9 (2.4) | 0.015 | 0.012

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• HDL cholesterol, erythritol Q4 vs Q1

  decreases, p = 0.001

  HDL cholesterol, mg/dL | 835 | 56 | Ref. | −1.8 (1.6) | 0.27 | −1.5 (1.6) | 0.34 | −5.4 (1.6) | < 0.001 | < 0.001

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• HDL cholesterol, erythritol Q4 vs Q1

  no effect, p = 0.11

  HDL cholesterol, mg/dL | 728 | 70 | Ref. | −0.25 (1.78) | 0.89 | −0.39 (1.78) | 0.83 | −2.89 (1.79) | 0.11 | 0.13

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• Incident CHD risk per 1-SD plasma erythritol

  increases

  both were independently associated with increased risks of CHD [RR 1.19 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.33) per 1 SD of erythritol and RR 1.16 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.28) per 1 SD of mannitol/sorbitol]

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

• Incident CHD risk per 1-SD plasma erythritol

  increases

  the risk of CHD per 1-SD increment of plasma erythritol or mannitol/sorbitol was RR 1.20 (95% CI: 1.08, 1.34) (Figure 2A) or RR 1.17 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.29) (Figure 2B), respectively

  PMID:39230875 · one of two readings recorded this

The whole record — 246 rows