Kombucha is a fermented nonalcoholic tea-based beverage produced through a symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeasts. In vitro studies have demonstrated antimicrobial, antioxidant, antiproliferative, and anti-carcinogenic properties of kombucha. However, no systematic reviews have evaluated the effects of kombucha in vivo. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the evidence that exists so far about kombucha consumption on comorbidities associated with obesity as well as on the gut microbiota. The search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020158917). The MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, LILACS, SciELO, Scopus, and Science Direct databases were used in the search considering the following terms: “kombucha” OR “kombucha tea” OR “kombucha teas” OR “tea, kombucha” OR “teas, kombucha” NOT “review.” Fifteen studies were included in this review. The results suggest that kombucha consumption attenuates oxidative stress and inflammation, improves the liver detoxification process, and reduces intestinal dysbiosis. There is evidence that kombucha consumption is beneficial for the control and treatment of obesity and associated comorbidities, as well as for the modulation of the gut microbiota in vivo.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is an autosomal dominant genetic disease characterized by multisystem involvement including low bone mineral density (BMD). OBJECTIVE To assess the bone phenotype of individuals with NF1 and verify its association with nutrient intake. METHODS Twenty-six adults with NF1 underwent bone phenotype assessments using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and food intake evaluations. They were compared to 26 unaffected matched control patients. Weight, height, and waist circumference (WC) were measured. DXA provided total body, spine, and hip BMDs and bone mineral content (BMC) for all patients. Food intake was evaluated for energy, macro- and micro-nutrients. RESULTS Height (1.68 ± 0.1; 1.61 ± 0.1 cm; P = 0.003) and BMC (2.3 ± 0.4; 2.0 ± 0.5 kg; P = 0.046) were lower in the NF1 group. Individuals with NF1 also presented lower total body and spine BMDs (g/cm2) (1.1 ± 0.1, 1.0 ± 0.1, P = 0.036; 1.0 ± 0.1, 0.9 ± 0.1; P = 0.015, respectively). The frequency of total body bone mass below the expected level for patients’ ages was higher in the NF1 group (7.7%; 34.6%, P = 0.016). There were no differences in energy consumption. No correlations between BMC and BMD with nutrient intake were observed in the NF1 group. CONCLUSIONS The NF1 group presented lower BMCs and BMDs. Although a lower consumption of calcium, iron, and vitamin A, and a higher intake of sodium and omega-6 were observed, there was no relationship between bone phenotype and nutrient intake.

Obesity is a multifactorial disease that is difficult to control worldwide. Although nuts are recognized health foods, the application of food in obesity management is unclear. We systematically reviewed the literature and performed a meta-analysis to evaluate if nut consumption favors people on energy restriction (ER) dietary interventions. Four databases were used to search for eligible articles in May 2024. This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guide, and the bias risk of papers was evaluated. For the meta-analysis, we extracted the endpoint values of the group’s variables and estimated the effect sizes by the random-effects model. Sixteen and ten articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Almonds were evaluated in the majority of studies (n = 6). The consumption of nuts (28 to 84 g/d, 4 to 72 months) included in ER (–250 to 1000 kcal/d) did not differently affect anthropometry (weight loss, BMI, waist and hip circumferences), body composition (fat mass, fat-free mass, or lean mass), markers of glucose (glycemia and insulinemia), lipid metabolism (total cholesterol, HDL-c, LDL-c, LDL-c/HDL-c, or triglycerides), and systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In most analyses, stratifying studies by type of nut or intervention time did not present different results in the meta-analysis. As there are few studies, in addition to great methodological variability, more high-quality trials are needed to confirm these results. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42023444878.