Children aged 3-5 years old with congenital heart disease have comparable physical activity levels to age-, sex-, and season-matched controls, and many do not meet Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines.

Mineral components of dental composites are used in many medical and dental applications, including preventive, restorative, and regenerative dentistry. To evaluate the behavioural alterations induced by nanosized particles of novel dental composites, by means of depressive level and cognitive functions, experimental groups of rats were chronically administered with nanosized hydroxyapatite (HA), tricalcium phosphate (TCP), and amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP) with or without simultaneous application of Filipendula ulmaria L. (FU) methanolic extract. The significant prodepressant action was observed in groups solely treated with HA and ACP. Besides, prolonged treatment with ACP also resulted in a significant decline in cognitive functions estimated in the novel object recognition test. The adverse impact of calcium phosphates on estimated behavioural functions was accompanied by increased oxidative damage and apoptotic markers in the prefrontal cortex, as well as diminished specific neurotrophin (BDNF) and gabaergic expression. The results of our investigation showed that simultaneous antioxidant supplementation with FU extract prevented calcium phosphate-induced behavioural disturbances, as well as prooxidative and apoptotic actions, with the simultaneous restoration of BDNF and GABA-A receptors in the prefrontal cortex. These findings suggest that FU may be useful in the prevention of prodepressant impact and cognitive decline as early as the manifestation of calcium phosphate-induced neurotoxicity.

ObjectiveTo determine the relative efficacy of structured named diet and health behaviour programmes (dietary programmes) for prevention of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesAMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to September 2021.Study selectionRandomised trials of patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease that compared dietary programmes with minimal intervention (eg, healthy diet brochure) or alternative programmes with at least nine months of follow-up and reporting on mortality or major cardiovascular events (such as stroke or non-fatal myocardial infarction). In addition to dietary intervention, dietary programmes could also include exercise, behavioural support, and other secondary interventions such as drug treatment.Outcomes and measuresAll cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and individual cardiovascular events (stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned cardiovascular interventions).Review methodsPairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist approach and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methods to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome.Results40 eligible trials were identified with 35 548 participants across seven named dietary programmes (low fat, 18 studies; Mediterranean, 12; very low fat, 6; modified fat, 4; combined low fat and low sodium, 3; Ornish, 3; Pritikin, 1). At last reported follow-up, based on moderate certainty evidence, Mediterranean dietary programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for the prevention of all cause mortality (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.92; patients at intermediate risk: risk difference 17 fewer per 1000 followed over five years), cardiovascular mortality (0.55, 0.39 to 0.78; 13 fewer per 1000), stroke (0.65, 0.46 to 0.93; 7 fewer per 1000), and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.48, 0.36 to 0.65; 17 fewer per 1000). Based on moderate certainty evidence, low fat programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for prevention of all cause mortality (0.84, 0.74 to 0.95; 9 fewer per 1000) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.77, 0.61 to 0.96; 7 fewer per 1000). The absolute effects for both dietary programmes were more pronounced for patients at high risk. There were no convincing differences between Mediterranean and low fat programmes for mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction. The five remaining dietary programmes generally had little or no benefit compared with minimal intervention typically based on low to moderate certainty evidence.ConclusionsModerate certainty evidence shows that programmes promoting Mediterranean and low fat diets, with or without physical activity or other interventions, reduce all cause mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction in patients with increased cardiovascular risk. Mediterranean programmes are also likely to reduce stroke risk. Generally, other named dietary programmes were not superior to minimal intervention.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016047939

Background Despite the development and application of vaccines against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) around the world, the scientific community is still trying to find some therapies to avoid or ameliorate the fatal evolution of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since the publication of the potential use of ivermectin as a treatment against the disease, a pleiad of information about it has been published. However, the evidence is not strong or weak enough to conclude its usefulness in the clinical evolution of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. We evaluate the efficacy and safety of ivermectin in the treatment of Mexican patients with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 in a three-day administration in comparison to placebo. Methods A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was carried out in 66 adults with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 ratio to ivermectin plus acetaminophen or placebo plus acetaminophen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects without a disease progression to severity according to COVID-19 guidelines by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) since randomization to 14 days. Results None of the participants presented progression to a severe state in either group. Viral load was measured on Days 1, 5, and 14. No significant differences were observed in baseline or 14-day between groups (p = 0.720 and 0.362, respectively). However, on Day 5, a significant difference in viral load was observed between groups (p = 0.039). The frequency of symptoms was similar between groups, and no significant differences were observed. The most frequent symptom was cough. One severe adverse event associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in the ivermectin group. Conclusions At standard doses, ivermectin is not effective to prevent progression to a severe state or reducing symptoms in adults with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19. Trial registration The study was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04407507) on May 29, 2020.

Background Despite the development and application of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 around the world, the scientific community still tried to find some therapies to avoid or ameliorate the fatal evolution of the COVID-19. Since the publication of the potential use of Ivermectin as a treatment against the disease, a pleiad of information about it has been published. However, the evidence is not strong or weak enough to conclude its usefulness in the clinical evolution of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. We evaluate the efficacy and safety of ivermectin in the treatment of Mexican patients with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 in a three-day administration in comparison to placebo. Methods A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was carried out in 66 adults with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 ratio to Ivermectin plus acetaminophen or placebo plus acetaminophen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects without a disease progression to severity according to COVID-19 guidelines by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) since randomization to 14 days. Results None of the participants presented progression to a severe state in either group. Viral load was measured on Days 1, 5 and 14. No significant differences were observed in baseline or 14-day between groups (p = 0.720 and 0.362, respectively). However, on Day 5, a significant difference in viral load was observed between groups (p = 0.039). The frequency of symptoms was similar between groups, and no significant differences were observed. The most frequent symptom was cough. One severe adverse event associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in the ivermectin group. Conclusions At standard doses, ivermectin is not effective in the progression to severe state and reducing symptoms in adults with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19. Trial registration The study was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04407507)