Charlotte Debras

Mrs. Charlotte Debras

Sorbonne Paris Nord University, INSERM U1153, INRAe U1125, CNAM, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN), Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center – University of Paris (CRESS), Bobigny, France
+1
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 February 2020 in JAMA Internal Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BSBernard Srour
Bernard Srour
LFLéopold K. Fezeu
Léopold K. Fezeu
EKEmmanuelle Kesse-Guyot
Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot
BABenjamin Allès
Benjamin Allès
CDCharlotte Debras
Charlotte Debras
MTMathilde Touvier
Mathilde Touvier
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a major public health problem worldwide, affecting 425 million people in 2017, with an estimated projection of 629 million cases by 2045.1 It is therefore urgent to control the disease by intervening on modifiable risk factors, including diet, physical activity, and weight. According to the 2018 Global Burden of Diseases, 34.9% of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) of diabetes are attributable to dietary factors,2 such as high intakes of sugar and meat, and low intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and yogurt.3,4

24 March 2022 in PLOS Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CDCharlotte Debras
Charlotte Debras
ECEloi Chazelas
Eloi Chazelas
BSBernard Srour
Bernard Srour
NDNathalie Druesne-Pecollo
Nathalie Druesne-Pecollo
YEYounes Esseddik
Younes Esseddik
MTMathilde Touvier
Mathilde Touvier
Background: The food industry uses artificial sweeteners in a wide range of foods and beverages as alternatives to added sugars, for which deleterious effects on several chronic diseases are now well established. The safety of these food additives is debated, with conflicting findings regarding their role in the aetiology of various diseases. In particular, their carcinogenicity has been suggested by several experimental studies, but robust epidemiological evidence is lacking. Thus, our objective was to investigate the associations between artificial sweetener intakes (total from all dietary sources, and most frequently consumed ones: aspartame [E951], acesulfame-K [E950], and sucralose [E955]) and cancer risk (overall and by site). Methods and findings: Overall, 102,865 adults from the French population-based cohort NutriNet-Santé (2009–2021) were included (median follow-up time = 7.8 years). Dietary intakes and consumption of sweeteners were obtained by repeated 24-hour dietary records including brand names of industrial products. Associations between sweeteners and cancer incidence were assessed by Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, body mass index, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, and baseline intakes of energy, alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fibre, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products. Compared to non-consumers, higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners (i.e., above the median exposure in consumers) had higher risk of overall cancer (n = 3,358 cases, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.25], P-trend = 0.002). In particular, aspartame (HR = 1.15 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.28], P = 0.002) and acesulfame-K (HR = 1.13 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.26], P = 0.007) were associated with increased cancer risk. Higher risks were also observed for breast cancer (n = 979 cases, HR = 1.22 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.48], P = 0.036, for aspartame) and obesity-related cancers (n = 2,023 cases, HR = 1.13 [95% CI 1.00 to 1.28], P = 0.036, for total artificial sweeteners, and HR = 1.15 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.32], P = 0.026, for aspartame). Limitations of this study include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns. Conclusions: In this large cohort study, artificial sweeteners (especially aspartame and acesulfame-K), which are used in many food and beverage brands worldwide, were associated with increased cancer risk. These findings provide important and novel insights for the ongoing re-evaluation of food additive sweeteners by the European Food Safety Authority and other health agencies globally. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03335644.

27 August 2020 in PLOS Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MBMarie Beslay
Marie Beslay
BSBernard Srour
Bernard Srour
CMCaroline Méjean
Caroline Méjean
BABenjamin Allès
Benjamin Allès
TFThibault Fiolet
Thibault Fiolet
MTMathilde Touvier
Mathilde Touvier
Ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption has increased drastically worldwide and already represents 50%–60% of total daily energy intake in several high-income countries. In the meantime, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has risen continuously during the last century. The objective of this study was to investigate the associations between UPF consumption and the risk of overweight and obesity, as well as change in body mass index (BMI), in a large French cohort. A total of 110,260 adult participants (≥18 years old, mean baseline age = 43.1 [SD 14.6] years; 78.2% women) from the French prospective population-based NutriNet-Santé cohort (2009–2019) were included. Dietary intakes were collected at baseline using repeated and validated 24-hour dietary records linked to a food composition database that included >3,500 different food items, each categorized according to their degree of processing by the NOVA classification. Associations between the proportion of UPF in the diet and BMI change during follow-up were assessed using linear mixed models. Associations with risk of overweight and obesity were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models. After adjusting for age, sex, educational level, marital status, physical activity, smoking status, alcohol intake, number of 24-hour dietary records, and energy intake, we observed a positive association between UPF intake and gain in BMI (β Time × UPF = 0.02 for an absolute increment of 10 in the percentage of UPF in the diet, P < 0.001). UPF intake was associated with a higher risk of overweight (n = 7,063 overweight participants; hazard ratio (HR) for an absolute increase of 10% of UPFs in the diet = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.08–1.14; P < 0.001) and obesity (n = 3,066 incident obese participants; HR10% = 1.09 (1.05–1.13); P < 0.001). These results remained statistically significant after adjustment for the nutritional quality of the diet and energy intake. Study limitations include possible selection bias, potential residual confounding due to the observational design, and a possible item misclassification according to the level of processing. Nonetheless, robustness was tested and verified using a large panel of sensitivity analyses. In this large observational prospective study, higher consumption of UPF was associated with gain in BMI and higher risks of overweight and obesity. Public health authorities in several countries recently started to recommend privileging unprocessed/minimally processed foods and limiting UPF consumption. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03335644 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03335644)

7 September 2022 in BMJ
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CDCharlotte Debras
Charlotte Debras
ECEloi Chazelas
Eloi Chazelas
LSLaury Sellem
Laury Sellem
RPRaphaël Porcher
Raphaël Porcher
NDNathalie Druesne-Pecollo
Nathalie Druesne-Pecollo
MTMathilde Touvier
Mathilde Touvier
Objectives To study the associations between artificial sweeteners from all dietary sources (beverages, but also table top sweeteners, dairy products, etc), overall and by molecule (aspartame, acesulfame potassium, and sucralose), and risk of cardiovascular diseases (overall, coronary heart disease, and cerebrovascular disease). Design Population based prospective cohort study (2009-21). Setting France, primary prevention research. Participants 103 388 participants of the web based NutriNet-Santé cohort (mean age 42.2±14.4, 79.8% female, 904 206 person years). Dietary intakes and consumption of artificial sweeteners were assessed by repeated 24 h dietary records, including brand names of industrial products. Main outcomes measures Associations between sweeteners (coded as a continuous variable, log10 transformed) and cardiovascular disease risk, assessed by multivariable adjusted Cox hazard models. Results Total artificial sweetener intake was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (1502 events, hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.18, P=0.03); absolute incidence rate in higher consumers (above the sex specific median) and non-consumers was 346 and 314 per 100 000 person years, respectively. Artificial sweeteners were more particularly associated with cerebrovascular disease risk (777 events, 1.18, 1.06 to 1.31, P=0.002; incidence rates 195 and 150 per 100 000 person years in higher and non-consumers, respectively). Aspartame intake was associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events (1.17, 1.03 to 1.33, P=0.02; incidence rates 186 and 151 per 100 000 person years in higher and non-consumers, respectively), and acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk (730 events; acesulfame potassium: 1.40, 1.06 to 1.84, P=0.02; incidence rates 167 and 164; sucralose: 1.31, 1.00 to 1.71, P=0.05; incidence rates 271 and 161). Conclusions The findings from this large scale prospective cohort study suggest a potential direct association between higher artificial sweetener consumption (especially aspartame, acesulfame potassium, and sucralose) and increased cardiovascular disease risk. Artificial sweeteners are present in thousands of food and beverage brands worldwide, however they remain a controversial topic and are currently being re-evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority, the World Health Organization, and other health agencies. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03335644

1 November 2020 in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CDCharlotte Debras
Charlotte Debras
ECEloi Chazelas
Eloi Chazelas
BSBernard Srour
Bernard Srour
EEmmanuelle Kesse-Guyot
Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot
CJChantal Julia
Chantal Julia
MTMathilde Touvier
Mathilde Touvier
Excessive sugar intake is now recognized as a key risk factor for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. In contrast, evidence on the sugar-cancer link is less consistent. Experimental data suggest that sugars could play a role in cancer etiology through obesity but also through inflammatory and oxidative mechanisms and insulin resistance, even in the absence of weight gain. The objective was to study the associations between total and added sugar intake and cancer risk (overall, breast, and prostate), taking into account sugar types and sources. In total, 101,279 participants aged >18 y (median age, 40.8 y) from the French NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort study (2009-2019) were included (median follow-up time, 5.9 y). Sugar intake was assessed using repeated and validated 24-h dietary records, designed to register participants' usual consumption for >3500 food and beverage items. Associations between sugar intake and cancer risk were assessed by Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for known risk factors (sociodemographic, anthropometric, lifestyle, medical history, and nutritional factors). Total sugar intake was associated with higher overall cancer risk (n = 2503 cases; HR for quartile 4 compared with quartile 1: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.37; Ptrend = 0.02). Breast cancer risks were increased (n = 783 cases; HRQ4vs.Q1 = 1.51; 95% CI: 1.14, 2.00; Ptrend = 0.0007). Results remained significant when weight gain during follow-up was adjusted for. In addition, significant associations with cancer risk were also observed for added sugars, free sugars, sucrose, sugars from milk-based desserts, dairy products, and sugary drinks (Ptrend ≤ 0.01). These results suggest that sugars may represent a modifiable risk factor for cancer prevention (breast in particular), contributing to the current debate on the implementation of sugar taxation, marketing regulation, and other sugar-related policies. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03335644.

18 March 2022 in International Journal of Epidemiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ECEloi Chazelas
Eloi Chazelas
FPFabrice Pierre
Fabrice Pierre
NDNathalie Druesne-Pecollo
Nathalie Druesne-Pecollo
YEYounes Esseddik
Younes Esseddik
FEFabien Szabo de Edelenyi
Fabien Szabo de Edelenyi
MTMathilde Touvier
Mathilde Touvier
Nitrates and nitrites occur naturally in water and soil. They are also used as food additives (preservatives) in processed meats. They could play a role in the carcinogenicity of processed meat. The objective was to investigate the relationship between nitrate and nitrite intakes (natural food, water and food additive sources) and cancer risk in a large prospective cohort with detailed dietary assessment. Overall, 101 056 adults from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort (2009–ongoing, median follow-up 6.7 years) were included. Nitrites/nitrates exposure was evaluated using repeated 24-h dietary records, linked to a comprehensive composition database and accounting for commercial names/brands of industrial products. Associations with cancer risk were assessed using multi-adjusted Cox hazard models. In total, 3311 incident cancer cases were diagnosed. Compared with non-consumers, high consumers of food additive nitrates had higher breast cancer risk [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.24 (95% CI 1.03–1.48), P = 0.02], more specifically for potassium nitrate. High consumers of food additive nitrites had higher prostate cancer risk [HR = 1.58 (1.14–2.18), P = 0.008], specifically for sodium nitrite. Although similar HRs were observed for colorectal cancer for additive nitrites [HR = 1.22 (0.85–1.75)] and nitrates [HR = 1.26 (0.90–1.76)], no association was detected, maybe due to limited statistical power for this cancer location. No association was observed for natural sources. Food additive nitrates and nitrites were positively associated with breast and prostate cancer risks, respectively. Although these results need confirmation in other large-scale prospective studies, they provide new insights in a context of lively debate around the ban of these additives from the food industry.