OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the consumption of palm stearin (PS) versus butter on circulating cholesterol responses in the setting of both a low-carbohydrate/high-fat (LC/HF) and high-carbohydrate/low-fat (HC/LF) diet in healthy subjects. We also explored effects on plasma lipoprotein particle distribution and fatty acid composition.
METHODS: We performed a randomized, controlled-feeding, cross-over study that compared a PS- versus a Butter-based diet in a group of normocholesterolemic, non-obese adults. A controlled canola oil-based 'Run-In' diet preceded the experimental PS and Butter diets. All diets were eucaloric, provided for 3-weeks, and had the same macronutrient distribution but varied in primary fat source (40% of the total fat). The same Run-In and cross-over experiments were done in two separate groups who self-selected to either a LC/HF (n = 12) or a HC/LF (n = 12) diet track. The primary outcomes were low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-C, triglycerides, and LDL particle distribution.
RESULTS: Compared to PS, Butter resulted in higher LDL-C in both the LC/HF (13.4%, p = 0.003) and HC/LF (10.8%, p = 0.002) groups, which was primarily attributed to large LDL I and LDL IIa particles. There were no differences between PS and Butter in HDL-C, triglycerides, or small LDL particles. Oxidized LDL was lower after PS than Butter in LC/HF (p = 0.011), but not the HC/LF group.
CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that Butter raises LDL-C relative to PS in healthy normocholesterolemic adults regardless of background variations in carbohydrate and fat, an effect primarily attributed to larger cholesterol-rich LDL particles.
AIM: To investigate the impact of DM on the Emergence of MDR-TB and Treatment Failure in TB-DM comorbid patients.
METHODOLOGY: The PubMed database was systematically searched until April 03, 2022 (date last searched). Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study after a proper selection process.
RESULTS: Tuberculosis-Diabetes Mellitus patients were at higher risk to develop MDR-TB as compared to TB-non-DM patients (HR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.60-0.96, p
OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate the pattern and associated factors to COVID-19 knowledge, attitude, and practice among individuals with comorbidities.
METHODOLOGY: The systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant studies assessing the KAP of comorbid patients were retrieved by carefully searching the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. The appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies was used to determine the quality of the included studies and the risk of biases.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The pooled sample size of the included studies was 9,104. Different comorbidities reported in the studies include hypertension, diabetes, psychological disorders, and cancer. Pooled analysis showed that 65% of patients showed good knowledge, 57% of patients showed a positive attitude and 51% of patients followed good practices to manage the COVID-19 in presence of their comorbid condition. Significant factors impacting knowledge, attitude and practice in COVID-19 comorbid patients were ethnicity OR 1.78 [95% CI 1.35-2.32]; educational status 3.2 [2.79-3.58]; urban residence 2.43 [1.65-3.02]; employment Status 1.67[1.34-2.12]; financial Status 4.02[3.66-4.38]; occupation 3.65[3.31-4.25]; information Source 2.64[2.19-3.26]; comorbidity 3.28[2.78-3.61]; and duration of chronic illness 1.59[1.31-2.04].
CONCLUSION: Comorbid COVID-19 patients showed good knowledge, positive attitude and good practice towards the management of the disease.
METHODS: We analyzed data from 524 families with PALB2 PVs from 21 countries. Complex segregation analysis was used to estimate relative risks (RRs; relative to country-specific population incidences) and absolute risks of cancers. The models allowed for residual familial aggregation of breast and ovarian cancer and were adjusted for the family-specific ascertainment schemes.
RESULTS: We found associations between PALB2 PVs and risk of female breast cancer (RR, 7.18; 95% CI, 5.82 to 8.85; P = 6.5 × 10-76), ovarian cancer (RR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.40 to 6.04; P = 4.1 × 10-3), pancreatic cancer (RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.50; P = 8.7 × 10-3), and male breast cancer (RR, 7.34; 95% CI, 1.28 to 42.18; P = 2.6 × 10-2). There was no evidence for increased risks of prostate or colorectal cancer. The breast cancer RRs declined with age (P for trend = 2.0 × 10-3). After adjusting for family ascertainment, breast cancer risk estimates on the basis of multiple case families were similar to the estimates from families ascertained through population-based studies (P for difference = .41). On the basis of the combined data, the estimated risks to age 80 years were 53% (95% CI, 44% to 63%) for female breast cancer, 5% (95% CI, 2% to 10%) for ovarian cancer, 2%-3% (95% CI females, 1% to 4%; 95% CI males, 2% to 5%) for pancreatic cancer, and 1% (95% CI, 0.2% to 5%) for male breast cancer.
CONCLUSION: These results confirm PALB2 as a major breast cancer susceptibility gene and establish substantial associations between germline PALB2 PVs and ovarian, pancreatic, and male breast cancers. These findings will facilitate incorporation of PALB2 into risk prediction models and optimize the clinical cancer risk management of PALB2 PV carriers.