Almond intake may be correlated with improvements in several cardiometabolic parameters, but its effects are controversial in the published literature, and it needs to be comprehensively summarized. We conducted a systematic search in several international electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov until April 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials that examined the effects of almond consumption on cardiometabolic risk factors, inflammatory markers, and liver enzymes. Data were pooled using the random-effects model method and presented as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Twenty-six eligible trials were analyzed (n = 1750 participants). Almond intake significantly decreased diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and very LDL (p < 0.05). The effects of almond intake on systolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, insulin, hemoglobin A1c, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, C-peptide, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transferase, C-reactive protein (CRP), hs-CRP (high sensitivity C-reactive protein), interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor-α, ICAM (Intercellular Adhesion Molecule), VCAM (Vascular Cell Adhesion Molecule), homocysteine, HDL, ox-LDL, ApoA1, ApoB, and lipoprotien-a were not statistically significant (p > .05). The current body of evidence supports the ingestion of almonds for their beneficial lipid-lowering and antihypertensive effects. However, the effects of almonds on antiinflammatory markers, glycemic control, and hepatic enzymes should be further evaluated via performing more extensive randomized trials.

No abstract

Background: Bupropion is a dopamine reuptake inhibitor, which is prescribed as an effective drug for the treatment of depression and as a complementary drug for smoking cessation in more than 50 countries. Although constipation and nausea are known as side effects of Bupropion, gastric ulcer has not been previously reported. Case presentation: In this case report a 28-year-old woman presented with a gastric ulcer 8 months after beginning depression treatment with Bupropion 150 mg once daily. Pantoprazole and Famotidine were prescribed to the patient. However, the gastric ulcer did not heal. After discontinuation of Bupropion, the gastric ulcer was treated. Conclusion: The present case report suggests that Bupropion may lead to peptic ulcers or this drug interferes with the treatment of gastric ulcers.

Background: The anal fissure is one of the most common anorectal diseases that is associated with reduced quality of life and productivity loss. We aimed to compare the efficacy of topical nifedipine and diltiazem for the treatment of acute anal fissure (AAF). Methods: This single-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted at Ziaeian hospital, Tehran. Patients with an acute fissure diagnosis were allocated to two groups. Group A applied 3 grams of 0.3% nifedipine cream on the peri-anal area, three times a day, for 8 weeks. Group B also applied the same amount of 2% diltiazem-ointment on the peri-anal area for the same period. The primary outcome was fissure remission in the 8th week of the treatments. The duration of pain relief, the side effect of treatment, and the recurrence rate were also compared between the groups. Results: After 8 weeks of treatment, a remission rate of 77.4% was shown in the nifedipine group which was significantly higher than the diltiazem group with a remission rate of 54% (P=0.01). Applying nifedipine ointment is associated with earlier pain relief compared with diltiazem (P<0.001). After 6 months of follow-up, the relapse rate was not statistically different between the nifedipine and diltiazem groups (16.3% versus 21.4%, respectively). Conclusion: The application of topical nifedipine is associated with shorter pain relief and more remission rate for AAF compared with topical diltiazem. However, both methods were not different in terms of related side effects and AAF recurrence rate.