Association between dietary omega-3 intake and coronary heart disease among American adults: The NHANES, 1999-2018.

BACKGROUND: Omega-3 has been extensively studied for its cardiovascular disease (CVD) benefits. However, the results of this evidence are inconsistent. Therefore, in this study, dietary omega-3 intake was investigated further in relation to coronary heart disease (CHD) risk among U.S. adults. METHODS: We used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database for people ages 20 years and older between 1999 and 2018 to conduct a cross-sectional survey. The Medical Condition Questionnaire (MCQ) was used to determine CHD status. We measured dietary omega-3 intake using two 24-hour dietary recall interviews. Multivariate logistic regression and subgroup analysis were used to explore the correlation between dietary omega-3 intake and CHD. The dose-response relationship between the two was analyzed with a restricted cubic spline (RCS). RESULTS: 31,184 study subjects were included, of whom 1,604 (5.14%) were patients with CHD. By quintile (Q) of dietary omega-3 intake, after adjusting for all confounding factors, compared with Q1, when total dietary omega-3, alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), eicosatetraenoic acid (ETA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexenoic acid (DHA) intake reached Q5, the odds ratio (95% confidence interval, CI) of CHD were 0.76 (0.60, 0.96), 0.73 (0.57, 0.94), 0.70 (0.54, 0.92), 0.66 (0.50, 0.85), 0.84 (0.69, 1.02), and 0.83 (0.64, 1.07), respectively, while EPA and DHA were not significantly associated with the disease (Trend p > 0.05). Intake of omega-3 and CHD were linearly related (P for nonlinear = 0.603). No significant interactions were found within subgroups except for the age group (P for interaction = 0.001). Sensitivity analysis and multivariate logistic regression results are generally in agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Total dietary omega-3, ALA, DPA, and ETA intake were negatively associated with CHD risk. In contrast, EPA and DHA had no significant correlation with CHD.

Efficacy of Fufang E'jiao Jiang in the Treatment of Patients with Qi and Blood Deficiency Syndrome: A Real-World Prospective Multicenter Study with a Patient Registry.

Objective: This nationwide, multicenter prospective observational study with a patient registry was designed to evaluate the efficacy of Fufang E'jiao Jiang (FEJ) in Chinese patients with Qi and blood deficiency syndrome (QBDS). Methods: QBDS patients were consecutively recruited from 81 investigational sites in China from July, 2019, to December, 2020. Patients who met the eligibility criteria were enrolled in a prospective registry database. Baseline characteristics and changes in scores on the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) symptom evaluation scale for Qi and blood deficiency, the clinical global impression (CGI) scale, the fatigue scale-14 (FS-14), and the Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) were analyzed to determine the clinical efficacy of FEJ. Results: A total of 3,203 patients were recruited. The average remission rate (i.e., the sum of the cure rate and improvement rate) of the 20 symptoms of QBDS was 92.49% after 4 weeks of FEJ treatment, which was higher than at baseline; the rate increased to 94.69% at 8 weeks. The CGI scale revealed that the number of total remissions at 4 and 8 weeks was 3,120 (97.41%) and 415 (100%), respectively. The total FS-14 scores decreased by 1.67 ± 4.11 (p < 0.001) at 4 weeks and 1.72 ± 3.09 (p < 0.001) at 8 weeks of treatment. The PSQI scores were 6.6 ± 4.7 and 6.52 ± 3.07 at 4 and 8 weeks, respectively, which were significantly lower than the baseline scores (p < 0.001; p = 0.0033). Both the subhealth fatigue (SF) and iron deficiency anemia (IDA) groups showed significantly improved clinical symptoms of QBDS (p < 0.01). Between-group comparisons revealed significantly greater improvements in FS-14 and PSQI scores in the SF group than in the IDA group (p < 0.05). A multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that disease course, FS-14 score at baseline, and four-week FEJ doses were independent risk factors for the degree of symptom relief in QBDS patients (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In real-world settings, FEJ has a promising effect in treating QBDS and can significantly improve the severity of its symptoms.

Developing Placebos for Clinical Research in Traditional Chinese Medicine: Assessing Organoleptic Properties of Three Dosage Forms (Oral Liquid, Capsule and Granule).

Background: The successful application of randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled studies requires maximum blinding. Organoleptic properties of the placebo should be similar to the drug, making it difficult to distinguish between the two. The uniqueness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) preparations makes it challenging to prepare placebo. Evaluation of the TCM placebo simulation effect can determine whether the preparation of placebo can be genuinely blind in clinical trials. There is still a lack of well-established methods to evaluate TCM placebos. Hence, this study aimed to explore the evaluation methodology of TCM placebo simulation. Methods: An independent evaluation method and three comparative evaluation methods were proposed, and three dosage forms (oral liquid, capsule, and granule) were tested. The independent evaluation, in which each person was given an experimental drug or a placebo, gave an overall assessment of organoleptic properties in a blind state. We comparatively evaluated the similarity in organoleptic properties between the experimental drug and placebo. According to different distribution methods, we divided comparative evaluation methods into three. In method 1, the evaluator was given the experimental drug and placebo and was told that there must be a placebo among them. In method 2, each evaluator was randomly assigned to the combination group or two investigational drugs group. In method 3, the evaluator was assigned to a set of three coded samples, numbered by random three-digit numbers, each different, two of which were identical, and the two samples were equally frequent. Results: In the independent evaluation, there was no difference between TCM placebo and experimental drugs in a blind state at the level of p = 0.05. Even though the comparative evaluation methods enabled identification of potential differences between the two samples, methods 2 and 3 were better than method 1 in eliminating psychological factors. Also, in method 3, the completely random method combined with the blind method eliminated the subjectivity and objectivity bias and improved the experiment's credibility compared with the previous two methods. Conclusion: Regardless of the methods that could evaluate the placebo's simulated effect in actual clinical trials, we suggest that independent evaluation and comparative evaluation (method 3) should be combined to reflect better whether the placebo is truly blind.