Effect of nuts on lipid profile and inflammatory biomarkers in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Nut-enriched diets are related to improve lipid and inflammatory biomarkers in meta-analyses in the context of primary cardiovascular prevention. However, primary studies on secondary cardiovascular prevention are scarce and controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of nut supplementation on lipid and inflammatory profiles in individuals with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and the frequency of adverse events. METHODS: Six databases were used for research: PubMed, EMBASE, BVS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov, until February 2023, with no language restrictions. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to compare nut-enriched diets vs. control diets for pre-post intervention changes. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system assessed the evidence's certainty. RESULTS: From the 5187 records identified, eight publications containing data referring to five randomized clinical trials involving 439 participants were included in the final analyses. The nuts evaluated were almonds, pecans, Brazil nuts, and mixed nuts, with doses ranging between 5 g and 85 g (median: 30 g/day). The intervention time varied between 6 and 12 weeks. Compared to nut-free diets, nut intake did not have a statistically significant effect on lipid profile biomarkers, except on the atherogenic index (MD: -0.32 [95% CI -0.58 to -0.06], I2 = 0% - moderate certainty of the evidence). Similarly, there was no effect of nuts on inflammatory profile biomarkers. It was not possible to aggregate data on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Nut supplementation did not change lipid and inflammatory profiles in the secondary cardiovascular prevention setting.

Effect of Nuts on Anthropometric and Glycemic Indexes and Blood Pressure in Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

CONTEXT: Nut-enriched diets have a positive impact on cardiovascular risk factors, such as body mass, blood pressure, and fasting blood glucose. However, studies in individuals undergoing secondary cardiovascular prevention show controversial results. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review with meta-analysis assessed the effect of nut supplementation on anthropometric, glycemic, and blood pressure indices in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, as well as the frequency of adverse events. DATA SOURCES: Six databases were used for the search-PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, BVS (Biblioteca Virtual da Saude), Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov-until February 2023, with no language restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions methodology and the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Setting/design) strategy were used. Seven independent reviewers were involved in data extraction and resolution of disagreements. Certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. DATA ANALYSIS: From 5187 records identified, 6 publications containing data referring to 5 randomized clinical trials (n = 436) were included in the final analyses. The nuts evaluated were almonds, pecans, Brazil nuts, and mixed nuts, with portions that varied between 5 g and 85 g (median: 30 g/day). The intervention period varied between 6 and 12 weeks. The nuts had no effect on fasting glucose and anthropometric indices, although the certainty of the evidence for most of these outcomes was low or very low. They also had no effect on systolic (mean difference [MD]: -1.16 mmHg [95% CI, -5.68 to 3.35], I2 = 0%-moderate certainty of evidence) or diastolic (MD: 0.10 mmHg [95% CI, -2.30 to 2.51], I2 = 0%-high certainty of evidence) blood pressure. It was not possible to aggregate data on adverse events. CONCLUSION: Nut supplementation had no effect on blood pressure, fasting glucose, or anthropometric profile in the context of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020163456.

Risk for Obstructive Sleep Apnea by Berlin Questionnaire, but not daytime sleepiness, is associated with resistant hypertension: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS) is a risk factor for resistant hypertension. Overnight polysomnography and portable sleep monitors are not generally available and questionnaires may be useful for screening OSAS. In a case-control study, we investigate the association between resistant hypertension and sleep disorders evaluated by the Berlin Questionnaire and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). METHODS: Cases were 63 patients with resistant hypertension (either systolic blood pressure (BP) > or =140 mm Hg or diastolic BP > or =90 mm Hg using at least three BP-lowering drugs, including a diuretic). Controls were 63 patients with controlled BP under drug treatment. All the patients were submitted to ambulatory BP monitoring and level III polysomnography by means of a portable monitor. The prevalence of high risk in the Berlin Questionnaire and high score in the ESS (>10) was compared between the groups. Diagnostic performance for OSAS of both questionnaires was calculated. RESULTS: The prevalence of high score in ESS was 44% in both groups. There was a higher prevalence of high risk for OSAS in Berlin Questionnaire in the cases group (78% vs. 48%; P < 0.001). In a logistic regression model, high risk for OSAS in Berlin Questionnaire was independently associated with resistant hypertension (odds ratio 4.1; confidence interval 95% 1.80-9.31; P < 0.01). Sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of OSAS was 85.5% (75.3-92.0%) and 65.0% (52.0-76.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: High risk for OSAS assessed by the Berlin Questionnaire is highly prevalent and associated with resistant hypertension. This questionnaire may be used as screening for OSAS in patients with this clinical condition.