This large cohort study of participants in the Nurses’ Health Study II evaluates the association between risk of incident rosacea in women and caffeine intake, including caffeinated coffee consumption.
Key Points
Question
Is there an association between risk of incident rosacea and caffeine intake, including from coffee consumption?
Findings
In this cohort of 82 737 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study II, we identified 4945 incident cases of rosacea, and found a significant inverse association between risk of rosacea and increased caffeine intake, particularly that from coffee. This association was not found for caffeine intake from other food sources (tea, soda, and chocolate).
Meaning
Our findings do not support limiting caffeine intake as a means to prevent rosacea and may have implications for the causes of and clinical approach to rosacea.
Abstract
Importance
Caffeine is known to decrease vasodilation and have immunosuppressant effects, which may potentially decrease the risk of rosacea. However, the heat from coffee may be a trigger for rosacea flares. The relationship between the risk of rosacea and caffeine intake, including coffee consumption, is poorly understood.
Objective
To determine the association between the risk of incident rosacea and caffeine intake, including coffee consumption.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This cohort study included 82 737 women in the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), a prospective cohort established in 1989, with follow-up conducted biennially between 1991 and 2005. All analysis took place between June 2017 and June 2018.
Exposures
Data on coffee, tea, soda, and chocolate consumption were collected every 4 years during follow-up.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Information on history of clinician-diagnosed rosacea and year of diagnosis was collected in 2005.
Results
A total of 82 737 women responded to the question regarding a diagnosis of rosacea in 2005 in NHS II and were included in the final analysis (mean [SD] age at study entry, 50.5 [4.6] years). During 1 120 051 person-years of follow-up, we identified 4945 incident cases of rosacea. After adjustment for other risk factors, we found an inverse association between increased caffeine intake and risk of rosacea (hazard ratio for the highest quintile of caffeine intake vs the lowest, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.84; P < .001 for trend). A significant inverse association with risk of rosacea was also observed for caffeinated coffee consumption (HR, 0.77 for those who consumed ≥4 servings/d vs those who consumed <1/mo; 95% CI, 0.69-0.87; P < .001 for trend), but not for decaffeinated coffee (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.14; P = .39 for trend). Further analyses found that increased caffeine intake from foods other than coffee (tea, soda, and chocolate) was not significantly associated with decreased risk of rosacea.
Conclusions and Relevance
Increased caffeine intake from coffee was inversely associated with the risk of incident rosacea. Our findings do not support limiting caffeine intake as a means to prevent rosacea. Further studies are required to explain the mechanisms of action of these associations, to replicate our findings in other populations, and to explore the relationship of caffeine with different rosacea subtypes.
Introduction
Rosacea is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease.1,2 Many triggers for rosacea have been postulated, including caffeine, hot beverages, sunlight, spicy foods, strenuous exercise, and hormonal factors.3,4,5,6,7,8
The reported direction and magnitude of the association between the risk of rosacea and caffeine and coffee intake in prior epidemiologic studies have been inconsistent.8,9,10,11 Previous studies did not differentiate between caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee and other beverages, and the distinction between amounts of caffeine and coffee consumed was made in only 1 study.8 We conducted the first large cohort study to our knowledge to evaluate the association between caffeine intake, coffee consumption, and risk of incident rosacea in a large cohort of women from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II).
Methods
Study Population
Details of NHS II have been described previously.12,13 The study was approved by the institutional review board of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. Participants’ completion and return of the questionnaires were considered informed consent.
In the cohort, participants were asked about their intake of food and beverages every 4 years. Participants could report the number of servings by selecting from 9 frequency responses (never, 1-3/mo, 1/wk, 2-4/wk, 5-6/week, 1/d, 2-3/d, 4-5/d, and 6/d) for caffeinated coffee, decaffeinated coffee, tea, soft drinks, and chocolate. The total caffeine intake was calculated by summing the caffeine content for a determined amount of each item and multiplying that by its frequency of intake, for which the methods have been detailed previously.14 Food frequency questionnaires have high reproducibility and validity, with strong correlations with multiple dietary records for coffee (r = 0.78) and other caffeine-rich beverage intake (tea, r = 0.93; caffeinated carbonated beverages, r = 0.84).15,16
In 2005, NHS II participants were asked if they had clinician-diagnosed rosacea, and, if so, the year of diagnosis in 5 time intervals (before 1991, 1991-1994, 1995-1998, 1999-2002, or 2003-2005). We recently reviewed the medical records of 16 participants who reported a diagnosis of rosacea in 2005, 14 of whom had information on rosacea in their medical records. The diagnosis of rosacea was confirmed in 12 of 14 cases. In a separate clinic-based validation study (unpublished data, W.-Q.L., June 1, 2018), the rosacea assessment question used in NHS II was validated (“Have you ever had clinician-diagnosed rosacea?”); in 37 patients with confirmed rosacea and 18 patients without rosacea, comparison between medical record diagnosis and self-reported rosacea yielded a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 92%, and a positive predictive value of 94%, which, though obtained from a different population, lends support to the validity of rosacea diagnosis in NHS II.
Statistical Analysis
A total of 82 737 participants responded to the question regarding a diagnosis of rosacea in 2005 and were included in the final analysis. Person-years were calculated from the return date of the 1991 questionnaire to the date of diagnosis of rosacea or end of follow-up in June 2005, whichever came first. To estimate long-term intake of caffeine, caffeinated coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and other food and drinks containing caffeine, updated cumulative averages for intake were used from all available frequency questionnaires from different years.
We conducted Cox proportional hazards analyses to estimate age- and multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of incident rosacea associated with caffeine intake and coffee consumption. For these analyses, caffeine intake was categorized as quintiles, with cutoffs derived from caffeine intake in 1991 in NHS II. Coffee consumption was categorized a priori into 5 serving groups (<1/mo, 1/mo to 4/wk, 5-7/wk, 2-3/d, or ≥4/d). Caffeine intake from coffee and caffeine intake from other food sources were assessed as continuous variables. Trend tests were carried out using continuous measures by assigning the median to each category. The adjusted Cox proportional hazard analyses were fitted to a restricted cubic spline model to obtain the HR of rosacea as a function of caffeine intake with adjustment for covariates.
We conducted stratified analyses by smoking status, alcohol intake, body mass index (BMI, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), and physical activity, as well as interaction analyses between these factors and the main exposure because they have been associated with rosacea in prior studies.11,17,18,19
A 4-year lag analysis excluding rosacea cases documented within the first 4 years of each updated assessment of caffeine and coffee intake was performed to address potential reverse-causation bias. To address the concern of potential residual confounding, we conducted a sensitivity analysis additionally adjusting for oral contraceptive use, cumulative UV (UV) flux, personal history of major chronic diseases, antidepressant medication use, and phobic anxiety. Because rosacea epidemiology varies with respect to race,20 a secondary sensitivity analysis was performed excluding nonwhite participants.
All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software, version 9.4. All statistical tests were 2-tailed with a significance level of P < .05.
Results
Table 1 summarizes the participant characteristics in 1991 stratified by quintile of caffeine intake. The proportion of current and past smokers and users of oral contraceptives were increased with increasing caffeine intake. In addition, participants with higher caffeine intake tended to be older and have higher alcohol intake. Other characteristics were similar among the 5 groups of caffeine intake. The biggest source of caffeine was caffeinated coffee, which showed the greatest difference in intake across quintiles of overall caffeine intake among the investigated food and drink groups.
Table 1. Age-Standardized Characteristics of Study Participants in the Nurses’ Health Study II by Caffeine Intake, 1991a.
| Characteristics | Caffeine Intake Quintile (mg/d) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (<46) (n = 16 593) |
2 (47-133) (n = 16 714) |
3 (134-233) (n = 16 507) |
4 (234-410) (n = 16 616) |
5 (≥411) (n = 16 307) |
|
| Age, mean (SD), yb | 35.6 (4.8) | 35.4 (4.8) | 36.1 (4.7) | 36.7 (4.4) | 37.2 (4.4) |
| White, % | 91.8 | 92.9 | 93.2 | 94.5 | 95.5 |
| Current smoking, % | 4.4 | 6.1 | 9.1 | 13.6 | 25.5 |
| Past smoking, % | 16.2 | 17.3 | 22.2 | 29.0 | 27.5 |
| Alcohol intake, mean (SD), g/d | 1.7 (4.5) | 2.3 (4.9) | 3.1 (5.7) | 4.4 (7.4) | 4.2 (7.0) |
| Physical activity, metabolic equivalent, mean (SD), h/wk | 20.7 (25.3) | 20.0 (25.9) | 20.9 (27.3) | 21.7 (27.8) | 20.4 (27.4) |
| Postmenopausal, % | 3.2 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 3.9 |
| Personal history of major chronic diseases, %c | 12.2 | 13.0 | 12.9 | 11.8 | 12.4 |
| Oral contraceptive use, % | 80.6 | 84.1 | 85.5 | 86.4 | 86.8 |
| UV flux, mean (SD), ×10−4 Robertson-Berger count | 251.0 (48.6) | 250.6 (48.2) | 251.9 (49.1) | 247.7 (48.3) | 248.6 (49.1) |
| Caffeinated food intake, mean (SD), servings/d | |||||
| Caffeinated coffee | 0.1 (0.1) | 0.1 (0.2) | 0.5 (0.4) | 1.5 (0.7) | 2.4 (0.5) |
| Decaffeinated coffee | 0.4 (0.7) | 0.3 (0.6) | 0.3 (0.6) | 0.3 (0.5) | 0.2 (0.5) |
| Caffeinated tea | 0.2 (0.2) | 0.6 (0.6) | 0.8 (0.8) | 0.7 (0.9) | 0.6 (0.8) |
| Caffeinated soda | 0.2 (0.1) | 0.5 (0.6) | 0.6 (0.7) | 0.5 (0.7) | 0.7 (0.8) |
| Chocolate | 0.2 (0.2) | 0.3 (0.2) | 0.2 (0.2) | 0.2 (0.2) | 0.2 (0.2) |
| Caffeine from coffee, mean (SD), mg/d | 3.7 (4.0) | 19.9 (31.2) | 80.8 (61.2) | 259.4 (128.3) | 480.5 (176.5) |
| Caffeine from other foods including tea, soda, and chocolate, mean (SD), mg/d | 9.6 (11.5) | 46.1 (41.4) | 58.9 (62.1) | 51.9 (74.9) | 45.4 (63.2) |
Values are standardized to the age distribution of the study population.
Values are not age-adjusted.
Major chronic diseases include cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia.
During the 1 120 051 person-years of follow-up, we identified 4945 incident cases of rosacea. As supported by the data reported in Table 2, We found a significant inverse association between increased caffeine intake and risk of rosacea. From the lowest to highest quintile of caffeine intake, the cohort age-adjusted incidence rates (AAIRs) of rosacea were 504, 502, 501, 478, and 372 per 100 000 person-years, respectively. Compared with the lowest quintile, the absolute risks of rosacea were decreased by 2, 3, 26, and 132 per 100 000 person-years, respectively, for the second to fifth quintile. The multivariate-adjusted HRs (95% CIs) for rosacea from the lowest to highest quintiles of caffeine intake were 1 [reference], 0.91 (0.84-1.00), 0.92 (0.84-1.00), 0.85 (0.77-0.93), and 0.76 (0.69-0.84) (P < .001 for trend). The approximately linear downward-sloping restricted cubic spline curve (eFigure 1 in the Supplement) demonstrates the inverse association between caffeine intake and the risk of rosacea.
Table 2. Age- and Multivariate-Adjusted HRs for Rosacea by Caffeine Intake in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991–2005).
| Caffeine Intake, mg/d (Quintile)a | Cases, No. | Person-Years, No. | Crude Incidence Rate per 100 000 Person-Years | Age-adjusted Incidence Rate per 100 000 Person-Yearsb | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age-Adjusted | Multivariate-Adjustedc | |||||
| ≤46 (1) | 851 | 192 622 | 442 | 504 | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| 47-133 (2) | 1113 | 242 602 | 459 | 502 | 0.96 (0.88-1.05) | 0.91 (0.84-1.00) |
| 134-233 (3) | 1022 | 218 466 | 468 | 501 | 0.98 (0.90-1.08) | 0.92 (0.84-1.00) |
| 234-410 (4) | 1222 | 262 644 | 465 | 478 | 0.94 (0.86-1.02) | 0.85 (0.77-0.93) |
| ≥411 (5) | 737 | 203 717 | 362 | 372 | 0.80 (0.72-0.88) | 0.76 (0.69-0.84) |
| Per 100-mg/d increment | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0.96 (0.95-0.98) | 0.96 (0.94-0.97) |
| P value for trend | NA | NA | NA | NA | <.001 | <.001 |
Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; NA, not applicable.
Caffeine intake was categorized into quintiles, with cutoffs derived from caffeine intake in 1991.
The incidence rate of rosacea adjusted to the age distribution in the Nurses’ Health Study II.
Adjusted for age (continuous variable), race (non-Hispanic white, African American, Asian, or other race), postmenopausal hormone use (premenopause, never, current, or past users), alcohol drinking (none, <4.9, 5.0-9.9, 10.0-14.9, 15.0-29.9, or ≥30.0 g/d), smoking status (never smokers, past smokers 1-4/d, past smokers 5-14/d, past smokers 15-24/d, past smokers ≥25/d, current smokers 1-4 cigarettes/d, current smokers 5-14/d, current smokers 15-24/d, current smokers ≥25/d), body mass index (continuous variable), and physical activity (metabolic equivalent, h/wk in quintiles).
As supported by the data reported in Table 3, a significant inverse association was also observed between caffeinated coffee consumption and risk of incident rosacea (P < .001 for trend). Compared with individuals who consumed less than 1 serving of caffeinated coffee per month (AAIR, 495/100 000 person-years), participants who consumed 4 servings per day or more had the lowest risk of rosacea (AAIR, 364/100 000 person-years; HR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69-0.87). Decaffeinated coffee consumption was not associated with a decreased risk of rosacea (P = .39 for trend).
Table 3. Age- and Multivariate-Adjusted Hazard Ratios for Rosacea by Coffee Intake in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991–2005).
| Coffee Servings, No. | Cases, No. | Person-Years, No. | Crude Incidence Rate per 100 000 Person-Years | Age-adjusted Incidence Rate per 100 000 Person-Yearsa | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age-Adjusted | Multivariate-Adjustedb | |||||
| Caffeinated | ||||||
| <1/mo | 1549 | 358 137 | 433 | 495 | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| 1/mo to 4/wk | 802 | 170 772 | 470 | 510 | 1.01 (0.93-1.10) | 0.99 (0.91-1.09) |
| 5-7/wk | 544 | 135 956 | 400 | 440 | 0.91 (0.83-1.00) | 0.89 (0.80-0.98) |
| 2-3/d | 1643 | 343 578 | 478 | 482 | 0.96 (0.90-1.03) | 0.90 (0.83-0.97) |
| ≥4/d | 407 | 111 608 | 365 | 364 | 0.79 (0.71-0.88) | 0.77 (0.69-0.87) |
| P value for trend | NA | NA | NA | NA | <.001 | <.001 |
| Decaffeinated | ||||||
| <1/mo | 2486 | 622 552 | 399 | 448 | 1 [Referent] | 1 [Referent] |
| 1/mo to 4/wk | 1578 | 315 378 | 500 | 515 | 1.15 (1.08-1.23) | 1.11 (1.04-1.19) |
| 5-7/wk | 403 | 83 536 | 482 | 489 | 1.12 (1.01-1.24) | 1.08 (0.97-1.20) |
| 2-3/d | 447 | 88 837 | 503 | 476 | 1.15 (1.04-1.27) | 1.09 (0.98-1.20) |
| ≥4/d | 31 | 9747 | 318 | 292 | 0.83 (0.58-1.19) | 0.80 (0.56-1.14) |
| P value for trend | NA | NA | NA | NA | .04 | .39 |
Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; NA, not applicable.
The incidence rate of rosacea adjusted to the age distribution in the Nurses’ Health Study II.
Adjusted for age (continuous variable), race (non-Hispanic white, African American, Asian, or other race), postmenopausal hormone use (premenopause, never, current, or past users), alcohol drinking (none, <4.9, 5.0-9.9, 10.0-14.9, 15.0-29.9, or ≥30.0 g/d), smoking status (never smokers, past smokers 1-4 cigarettes/d, past smokers 5-14/d, past smokers 15-24/d, past smokers ≥25/d, current smokers 1-4/d, current smokers 5-14/d, current smokers 15-24/d, current smokers ≥25/d), body mass index (continuous variable), and physical activity (metabolic equivalent in quintiles, h/wk).
The data reported in Table 4 supports the association of caffeine intake with incident rosacea based on the caffeine source. Caffeine intake from coffee was inversely associated with risk of incident rosacea (P < .001 for trend), whereas caffeine intake from other sources (tea, soda, and chocolate) showed no association with risk of rosacea (P = .58 for trend).
Table 4. Hazard Ratios for Rosacea Associated With Caffeine Intake Per 100 mg/d Increment From Coffee and Other Foods in the Nurses' Health Study II (1991-2005).
| Caffeine Source | Age-Adjusted | Multivariate-Adjusteda | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | P Value for Trend | HR (95% CI) | P Value for Trend | |
| Coffee | 0.97 (0.96-0.99) | <.001 | 0.96 (0.95-0.98) | <.001 |
| Other foods including tea, soda, and chocolate | 0.99 (0.94-1.05) | .82 | 1.02 (0.96-1.08) | .58 |
Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio.
Adjusted for age (continuous variable), race (non-Hispanic white, African American, Asian, or other race), postmenopausal hormone use (premenopause, never, current, or past users), alcohol drinking (none, <4.9 g/d, 5.0-9.9, 10.0-14.9, 15.0-29.9, or ≥30.0 g/d), smoking status (never smokers, past smokers 1-4 cigarettes/d, past smokers 5-14/d, past smokers 15-24/d, past smokers ≥25/d, current smokers 1-4 cigarettes/d, current smokers 5-14/d, current smokers 15-24/d, current smokers ≥25 cigarettes/d), body mass index (continuous variable), and physical activity (metabolic equivalent in quintiles, h/wk).
We further examined the risk of rosacea associated with servings of caffeinated tea, caffeinated soda, and chocolate, and these data are reported in eTable 1 in the Supplement. We did not find a significant association between caffeinated tea or soda and risk of rosacea (P = .30 for trend and P = .08 for trend, respectively). Results suggested chocolate as a potential risk factor for rosacea (P = .04 for trend) (eTable 1 in the Supplement).
Analyses stratified by smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, and BMI showed generally similar associations between caffeine intake and risk of rosacea as detailed with supporting data in eTables 2 through 5 in the Supplement. We did not find effect modification by smoking status (P = .37 for interaction), alcohol intake (P = .13 for interaction), physical activity (P = .33 for interaction), or BMI (P = .61 for interaction) on the association between caffeine intake and risk of rosacea.
The 4-year lag analysis and sensitivity analyses did not change the results materially (data not shown).
Discussion
In the present study, we found that caffeine intake from coffee but not from other foods (tea, soda, and chocolate) was associated with a decreased risk of incident rosacea in a dose-dependent manner. Although the relative risk of rosacea associated with caffeine intake and caffeinated coffee consumption was moderate, the absolute risk of rosacea was decreased remarkably by 132 per 100 000 person-years for the highest vs lowest quintile of caffeine intake and 131 per 100 000 person-years for caffeinated coffee consumption of 4 servings per day or more vs less than 1 serving per month.
Previous case-control studies and review articles have asserted differing effects of caffeine intake or coffee consumption on the risk of rosacea.8,9,10,11 One case-control study from Estonia9 and a literature review from France10 found no significant difference in risk of rosacea between groups consuming different amounts of caffeine. A case-control study from Poland reported increased risk of rosacea among coffee drinkers.11 In addition, a clinical narrative review and randomized clinical study analyzed caffeine as a potential trigger for rosacea flares.3,8 In the randomized clinical trial,8 participants with rosacea consumed caffeinated coffee and water at different temperatures. Caffeinated coffee was shown to have no effect on flushing in patients with rosacea, whereas heat led to flushing reactions.8
A variety of specific agents and mechanisms may be responsible for caffeine’s influence on rosacea. One possibility is its effect on vascular contractility. Specifically, vasodilation from neurovascular dysfunction has been documented in the pathogenesis of rosacea, particularly papulopustular rosacea,21,22 and caffeine is known to lead to vasoconstriction23,24 through its effect on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.25 Increased caffeine intake may decrease vasodilation and consequently lead to diminution of rosacea symptoms. Second, caffeine has been documented to contain antioxidant agents and to have immunosuppressant effects,26,27,28,29,30 which may result in decreased inflammation in rosacea. Third, hormonal factors have been implicated in the development of rosacea,5,6,7 and caffeine can modulate hormone levels, including levels of adrenaline, noradrenaline, and cortisol.25
Heat has been shown to be a trigger factor in patients with rosacea.8 That decaffeinated coffee showed no association suggests that ingredients other than caffeine may have counteracted the effects of heat. One potential ingredient is polyphenol present in coffee. Polyphenols have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and vascular effects,31 and they have been shown benefit in rosacea treatment, especially for facial erythema, papules, and pustules.31 Further studies are needed to elucidate determinants for risk of rosacea in decaffeinated coffee.
We hypothesize that the lack of association with rosacea found for caffeinated food and drinks other than coffee is due to the low absolute intake of caffeine from sources other than coffee. For the different quintiles of total caffeine intake, the tea, soda, and chocolate consumption amounts did not show an increasing trend, illustrating the dominance of coffee as a source of caffeine. An alternative explanation is that coffee may contain other compounds that lower the risk of rosacea. However, since no association was found with decaffeinated coffee consumption, caffeine is the putative component of coffee responsible for the inverse association between coffee and risk of rosacea.
The positive association found between chocolate consumption and risk of rosacea has a few possible explanations. First, the amount of caffeine per serving of chocolate varies widely.32,33 Second, chocolate itself may be a risk factor for rosacea.34 Because the caffeine content in chocolate is low, other compounds may be responsible for the observed association.
Limitations
We acknowledge some limitations. First, data on lifetime diagnosis of rosacea and diagnosis year were self-reported in 2005 by participants, leaving our study prone to recall bias. However, misclassification of rosacea would be expected to be nondifferential with respect to caffeine and coffee intake. Our lag analysis limits the impact of misclassification of year of diagnosis. The validation study based on medical record review and the clinic-based validation study provide some support for the validity of the rosacea self-reports (unpublished data, W.-Q.L., June 1, 2018). However, we were only able to review the medical records for a small subset of cases to verify the accuracy of self-reported rosacea in the cohort. Efforts are warranted to better assess the accuracy of self-reported rosacea in the cohort.
Second, caffeine intake, consumption of coffee and other beverages, was assessed in 4-year intervals. Third, etiologic heterogeneity may underlie different types of rosacea,1 but we did not have data on rosacea subtypes. Fourth, although we had detailed data on many covariates, we cannot rule out the possibility of residual confounding from unmeasured confounders (such as family history, stress, heat, and hot beverages) or imperfectly measured confounders (as were adjusted for in our analyses). Compounds other than caffeine in the food and drinks investigated may influence risk of rosacea. Fifth, all participants were well-educated women, and most were white, which limits the generalizability of our findings.
Conclusions
In summary, we provide evidence that caffeine intake and caffeinated coffee consumption are associated with a decreased risk of incident rosacea. Our study may have implications for the causes of and clinical approach to rosacea. Our findings do not support limiting caffeine intake as a preventive strategy for rosacea. Further studies are required to explain the underlying mechanisms of observed associations and to explore the relationship of caffeine with rosacea subtypes.
eTable 1. Age- and multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios for rosacea by tea, soda, and chocolate in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991-2005)
eTable 2. Association between caffeine intake and rosacea stratified by smoking status in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991–2005)
eTable 3. Association between caffeine intake and rosacea stratified by alcohol intake in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991–2005)
eTable 4. Association between caffeine intake and rosacea stratified by body mass index in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991–2005)
eTable 5. Association between caffeine intake and rosacea stratified by physical activity in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991–2005)
eFigure 1. Dose-response hazard ratio (with 95% CI) of incident rosacea by caffeine intake
References
- 1.Steinhoff M, Schauber J, Leyden JJ. New insights into rosacea pathophysiology: a review of recent findings. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69(6)(suppl 1):S15-S26. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.04.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Elewski BE, Draelos Z, Dréno B, Jansen T, Layton A, Picardo M. Rosacea—global diversity and optimized outcome: proposed international consensus from the Rosacea International Expert Group. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25(2):188-200. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2010.03751.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mikkelsen CS, Holmgren HR, Kjellman P, et al. . Rosacea: a clinical review. Dermatol Reports. 2016;8(1):6387. doi: 10.4081/dr.2016.6387 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Vieira AC, Höfling-Lima AL, Mannis MJ. Ocular rosacea—a review. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2012;75(5):363-369. doi: 10.1590/S0004-27492012000500016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ferahbas A, Utas S, Mistik S, Uksal U, Peker D. Rosacea fulminans in pregnancy: case report and review of the literature. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2006;7(2):141-144. doi: 10.2165/00128071-200607020-00007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Walsh RK, Endicott AA, Shinkai K. Diagnosis and treatment of rosacea fulminans: a comprehensive review. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018;19(1):79-86. doi: 10.1007/s40257-017-0310-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Goldman D. Tacrolimus ointment for the treatment of steroid-induced rosacea: a preliminary report. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;44(6):995-998. doi: 10.1067/mjd.2001.114739 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Wilkin JK. Oral thermal-induced flushing in erythematotelangiectatic rosacea. J Invest Dermatol. 1981;76(1):15-18. doi: 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12524458 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Abram K, Silm H, Maaroos HI, Oona M. Risk factors associated with rosacea. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010;24(5):565-571. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2009.03472.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Chosidow O, Cribier B. Epidemiology of rosacea: updated data [in French]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2011;138(suppl 2):S124-S128. doi: 10.1016/S0151-9638(11)70077-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Jaworek AK, Wojas-Pelc A, Pastuszczak M. Aggravating factors of rosacea [in Polish]. Przegl Lek. 2008;65(4):180-183. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Bao Y, Bertoia ML, Lenart EB, et al. . Origin, methods, and evolution of the three Nurses’ Health Studies. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(9):1573-1581. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303338 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Li WQ, Cho E, Weinstock MA, Mashfiq H, Qureshi AA. Epidemiological assessments of skin outcomes in the nurses’ health studies. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(9):1677-1683. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Wu S, Han J, Song F, et al. . Caffeine intake, coffee consumption, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Epidemiology. 2015;26(6):898-908. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Salvini S, Hunter DJ, Sampson L, et al. . Food-based validation of a dietary questionnaire: the effects of week-to-week variation in food consumption. Int J Epidemiol. 1989;18(4):858-867. doi: 10.1093/ije/18.4.858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Willett W. Nutritional Epidemiology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1998. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195122978.001.0001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Li S, Cho E, Drucker AM, Qureshi AA, Li WQ. Cigarette smoking and risk of incident rosacea in women. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(1):38-45. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwx054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Li S, Cho E, Drucker AM, Qureshi AA, Li WQ. Alcohol intake and risk of rosacea in US women. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(6):1061-1067.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.02.040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Li S, Cho E, Drucker AM, Qureshi AA, Li WQ. Obesity and risk for incident rosacea in US women. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77(6):1083-1087.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.08.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Petit A, Diallo M. Common Skin Conditions and Ethnicity. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. doi: 10.1002/9781118497784.ch3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Steinhoff M, Buddenkotte J, Aubert J, et al. . Clinical, cellular, and molecular aspects in the pathophysiology of rosacea. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2011;15(1):2-11. doi: 10.1038/jidsymp.2011.7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Schwab VD, Sulk M, Seeliger S, et al. . Neurovascular and neuroimmune aspects in the pathophysiology of rosacea. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2011;15(1):53-62. doi: 10.1038/jidsymp.2011.6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Terai N, Spoerl E, Pillunat LE, Stodtmeister R. The effect of caffeine on retinal vessel diameter in young healthy subjects. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90(7):e524-e528. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02486.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Li N, Li Y, Gao Q, et al. . Chronic fetal exposure to caffeine altered resistance vessel functions via RyRs-BKCa down-regulation in rat offspring. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13225. doi: 10.1038/srep13225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Echeverri D, Montes FR, Cabrera M, Galán A, Prieto A. Caffeine’s vascular mechanisms of action. Int J Vasc Med. 2010;2010(12):834060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Rossi FE, Panissa VLG, Monteiro PA, et al. . Caffeine supplementation affects the immunometabolic response to concurrent training. J Exerc Rehabil. 2017;13(2):179-184. doi: 10.12965/jer.1734938.445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Herman A, Herman AP. Caffeine’s mechanisms of action and its cosmetic use. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2013;26(1):8-14. doi: 10.1159/000343174 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Souza MA, Mota BC, Gerbatin RR, et al. . Antioxidant activity elicited by low dose of caffeine attenuates pentylenetetrazol-induced seizures and oxidative damage in rats. Neurochem Int. 2013;62(6):821-830. doi: 10.1016/j.neuint.2013.02.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Köroğlu OA, MacFarlane PM, Balan KV, et al. . Anti-inflammatory effect of caffeine is associated with improved lung function after lipopolysaccharide-induced amnionitis. Neonatology. 2014;106(3):235-240. doi: 10.1159/000363217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Tauler P, Martínez S, Moreno C, Monjo M, Martínez P, Aguiló A. Effects of caffeine on the inflammatory response induced by a 15-km run competition. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(7):1269-1276. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182857c8a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Saric S, Clark AK, Sivamani RK, Lio PA, Lev-Tov HA. The role of polyphenols in rosacea treatment: a systematic review. J Altern Complement Med. 2017;23(12):920-929. doi: 10.1089/acm.2016.0398 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Müller C, Vetter F, Richter E, Bracher F. Determination of caffeine, myosmine, and nicotine in chocolate by headspace solid-phase microextraction coupled with gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Food Sci. 2014;79(2):T251-T255. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.12339 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Wolz M, Schleiffer C, Klingelhöfer L, et al. . Comparison of chocolate to cacao-free white chocolate in Parkinson’s disease: a single-dose, investigator-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. J Neurol. 2012;259(11):2447-2451. doi: 10.1007/s00415-012-6527-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.National Rosacea Society Factors that may trigger rosacea flare-ups. https://www.rosacea.org/patients/materials/triggers.php. Accessed September 11, 2018.
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
eTable 1. Age- and multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios for rosacea by tea, soda, and chocolate in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991-2005)
eTable 2. Association between caffeine intake and rosacea stratified by smoking status in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991–2005)
eTable 3. Association between caffeine intake and rosacea stratified by alcohol intake in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991–2005)
eTable 4. Association between caffeine intake and rosacea stratified by body mass index in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991–2005)
eTable 5. Association between caffeine intake and rosacea stratified by physical activity in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991–2005)
eFigure 1. Dose-response hazard ratio (with 95% CI) of incident rosacea by caffeine intake