Foteini Christodouli

Dr. Foteini Christodouli


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

3Years (2024-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
19 September 2024 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LKLydia Kossiva
Lydia Kossiva
KKKonstantinos Kakleas
Konstantinos Kakleas
FCFoteini Christodouli
Foteini Christodouli
ASAlexandra Soldatou
Alexandra Soldatou
SKSpyridon Evangelos Karanasios
Spyridon Evangelos Karanasios
KKKyriaki Athina Karavanaki
Kyriaki Athina Karavanaki
Over the past few decades, the scientific community has been highly concerned about the obesity epidemic. Artificial sweeteners are compounds that mimic the sweet taste of sugar but have no calories or carbohydrates; hence, they are very popular among patients suffering from diabetes or obesity, aiming to achieve glycemic and/or weight control. There are four different types of sweeteners: artificial, natural, rare sugars, and polyols. Artificial and natural sweeteners are characterized as non-nutritional sweeteners (NNSs) since they do not contain calories. The extended use of sweeteners has been reported to have a favorable impact on body weight and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and on tooth decay prevention. However, there is concern regarding their side effects. Several studies have associated artificial sweeteners’ consumption with the development of insulin resistance, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), gastrointestinal symptoms, and certain types of cancer. The present review focuses on the description of different types of sweeteners and the benefits and possible deleterious effects of the chronic consumption of NNSs on children’s health. Additionally, possible underlying mechanisms of the unfavorable effects of NNSs on human health are described.

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SKStelios Kokkoris
Stelios Kokkoris
EAEpameinondas Angelopoulos
Epameinondas Angelopoulos
AGAikaterini Georgios Gkoufa
Aikaterini Georgios Gkoufa
FCFoteini Christodouli
Foteini Christodouli
TNTheodora Ntaidou
Theodora Ntaidou
CHRISTINA ROUTSICHRISTINA ROUTSI
CHRISTINA ROUTSI
Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the usefulness of serum procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil to lymphocyte count ratio (NLR), and their combination, in distinguishing candidemia from bacteremia in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods: This is a retrospective study in ICU patients with documented bloodstream infections (BSIs) and with both serum PCT and CRP measurements on the day of the positive blood sample. Illness severity was assessed by sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score on both admission and BSI day. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data, including PCT and CRP levels and NLR on the day of the BSI, were recorded. Results: A total of 63 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 32 had bacteremia and 31 had candidemia. PCT, CRP, and NLR values were all significantly lower in candidemia compared with bacteremia (0.29 (0.14–0.69) vs. 1.73 (0.5–6.9) ng/mL, p < 0.001, 6.3 (2.4–11.8) vs. 19 (10.7–24.8) mg/dl, p < 0.001 and 6 (3.7–8.6) vs. 9.8 (5.3–16.3), p = 0.001, respectively). PCT was an independent risk factor for candidemia diagnosis (OR 0.153, 95%CI: 0.04–0.58, p = 0.006). A multivariable model consisting of the above three variables had better predictive ability (AUC-ROC = 0.88, p < 0.001), for candidemia diagnosis, as compared to that of PCT, CRP, and NLR, whose AUC-ROCs were all lower (0.81, p < 0.001, 0.78, p < 0.001, and 0.68, p = 0.015, respectively). Conclusions: A combination of routinely available laboratory tests, such as PCT, CRP, and NLR, could prove useful for the early identification of ICU patients with candidemia.