Prospective cohort study investigates sweetened beverage effects on kidney stone disease risk, suggesting limiting intake for prevention.
Background To investigate the associations between consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs), and natural juices (NJs) and incident kidney stone disease (KSD), and to assess whether genetic susceptibility modifies these associations. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study of 191,863 UK Biobank participants free of KSD at baseline. Beverage consumption was assessed using web-based 24-h dietary recalls (2009–2012), categorized as 0, 0.1–1.0, 1.1–2.0, and >2.0 units/day (1 unit = 250 ml). A polygenic risk score (PRS) comprising 22 single nucleotide polymorphisms quantified genetic susceptibility. Multivariable Cox regression models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with gene-environment interactions evaluated through stratified analyses. Results During 13.5 years mean follow-up, 2,024 incident KSD cases occurred. Compared with non-consumers, participants consuming >2 units/day of SSBs had 51% higher KSD risk (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.17–1.95) with significant dose-response relationship ( P for trend < 0.001). ASBs showed elevated risk at 1.1–2.0 units/day (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02–1.28) without linear trend ( P = 0.192). NJs showed no significant association ( P for trend = 0.419). Higher PRS independently predicted KSD risk but did not significantly modify beverage-KSD associations (all P for interaction >0.05). Joint analyses revealed highest KSD hazard among participants with high SSB intake and low PRS (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.46–2.98). Conclusion Higher SSB consumption is dose-dependently associated with increased KSD risk, while ASBs show non-linear associations and NJs demonstrate no significant association. Genetic susceptibility independently predicts KSD risk but does not substantially modify beverage-KSD relationships. Limiting SSB intake represents an important modifiable strategy for KSD prevention independent of genetic predisposition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ye et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: