Background Nut consumption has been related to improvements on cardiometabolic parameters and reduction in the severity of atherosclerosis mainly in primary cardiovascular prevention. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the effects of the Brazilian Cardioprotective Diet (DIetaCArdioprotetoraBrasileira, DICA Br) based on consumption of inexpensive locally accessible foods supplemented or not with mixed nuts on cardiometabolic features in patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI). Methods DICA-NUTS study is a national, multicenter, randomized 16-week follow-up clinical trial. Patients over 40 years old with diagnosis of previous MI in the last 2 to 6 months will be recruited (n = 388). A standardized questionnaire will be applied to data collection and blood samples will be obtained. Patients will be allocated in two groups: Group 1: DICA Br supplemented with 30 g/day of mixed nuts (10 g of peanuts, 10 g of cashew, 10 g of Brazil nuts); and Group 2: only DICA Br. The primary outcome will consist of LDL cholesterol means (in mg/dL) after 16 weeks of intervention. Secondary outcomes will consist of other markers of lipid profile, glycemic profile, and anthropometric data. Discussion It is expected that DICA Br supplemented with mixed nuts have superior beneficial effects on cardiometabolic parameters in patients after a MI, when compared to DICA Br. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03728127. First register: November 1, 2018; Last update: June 16, 2021. World Health Organization Universal Trial Number (WHO-UTN): U1111-1259-8105.

Background: The management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) requires a complex and organized care that includes patient lifestyle change. Additionally, emotional well-being is an important part of self-management, and it may impair the individual’s adherence. Therefore, equipping them with the necessary coping and self-care techniques may be an important step in managing diabetes. Objective: to evaluate the effect of interventions using established based-mindfulness protocols on glycemic control of individuals T2DM. Methods: Data sources: Two electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) were searched from inception to December 2019. We limited our search to published studies in the English, Spanish and Portuguese language. Study selection: Randomized clinical trials that assessed the effects of mindfulness in individuals with T2DM were selected. Data extraction: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data from the included trials. Data were pooled using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analyses. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: Four randomized trials were included. There were no differences in blood glucose change (mean difference between groups (MD) -0.73mg/dl; 95% CI, -10.49; 9.02; I2 =0%; very low quality of evidence) or glycated hemoglobin (MD 0.05%; 95%CI -0.22 to 0.32; I2 =29%; very low quality of evidence). Conclusions: Although the quality of current evidence is very low, our findings suggest that established protocols involving mindfulness has no effect on blood glucose or glycated hemoglobin in individuals with T2DM. Indeed, largescale trials are needed to evaluate the contribution of mindfulness on glycemic control in the clinical practice.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract