Methods: The effects of M30-35 on the growth of C. quinoa seedlings were tested under salt stress. Seedling growth parameters measured included chlorophyll content, root activity, levels of plant- phosphorus (P), and saponin content.
Results: M30-35 increased biomass production and root activity compared to non-inoculated plants fertilized with rhizobia and plants grown under severe salt stress conditions. The photosynthetic pigment content of chlorophyll a and b were higher in M30-35-inoculated C. quinoa seedlings under high salt stress conditions compared to non-inoculated seedlings. The stability of P content was also maintained. The content of saponin, an important secondary metabolite in C. quinoa, was increased by the inoculation of M30-35 under 300 mM NaCl conditions.
Conclusion: Inoculation of M30-35 rescues the growth diminution of C. quinoa seedlings under salt stress.
METHODS: The cross-sectional survey was conducted among adults aged 18 years and above in Malaysia. A multi-stage stratified sampling was used to represent nationally. Twenty-four-hour urine was collected from a total of 900 respondents. Indirect ion-selective electrode (ISE) method was used to measure sodium intake. Descriptive and logistic regression analysis was applied to determine factors associated with high sodium intake based on 24-h urinary sodium excretion.
RESULTS: A total of 798 respondents (76% response rate) completed the 24-h urine collection process. Logistic regression revealed that high sodium intake associated with obese [aOR 2.611 (95% CI 1.519, 4.488)], male [aOR 2.436 (95% CI 1.473, 4.030)], having a waist circumference of > 90cm for adult males [aOR 2.260 ( 95% CI 1.020, 5.009) and >80cm for adult females [aOR 1.210 (95% CI 0.556, 2.631)], being a young adult [aOR 1.977 (95% CI 1.094, 3.574)], and living in urban areas [aOR 1.701 (95% CI 1.094, 2.645)].
CONCLUSION: Adults who are obese, have a large waist circumference, of male gender, living in urban areas, and belonging to the young adult age group were found to have higher sodium intake than other demographic groups. Hence, reduction of salt consumption among these high-risk groups should be emphasised to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases.
METHODS: This systematic review searched MEDLINE, CINAHL+, Econlit, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from inception to 31 December, 2022, for relevant economic evaluations, which were critically appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) criteria. The costs, quality-adjusted life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness thresholds were qualitatively analysed. Net monetary benefits at different decision thresholds were also computed. Subgroup analyses addressing the heterogeneity of economic outcomes were conducted. All costs were adjusted to 2023 international dollar (US$) values using the CCEMG-EPPI-Centre cost converter.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine economic evaluations that evaluated dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in patients with heart failure were found: 32 for the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% and seven for LVEF > 40%. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors were cost-effective in all but two economic evaluations for LVEF > 40%. Economic outcomes varied widely, but favoured SGLT2i use in LVEF ≤ 40% over LVEF > 40% and upper-middle income over high-income countries. At a threshold of US$30,000/quality-adjusted life-year, ~ 90% of high to upper-middle income countries would consider SGLT2i cost-effective for heart failure treatment. The generalisability of study findings to low- and low-middle income countries is limited because of insufficient evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Using SGLT2i to treat heart failure is cost-effective, with more certainty in LVEF ≤ 40% compared to LVEF > 40%. Policymakers in jurisdictions where economic evaluations are not available could potentially use this study's findings to make informed decisions about treatment adoption.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42023388701).