The Impact of a Very-Low-Calorie Ketogenic Diet in the Gut Microbiota Composition in Obesity.

The very-low-calorie KD (VLCKD) is characterized by a caloric intake of under 800 kcal/day divided into less than 50 g/day of carbohydrate (13%) and 1 to 1.5 g of protein/kg of body weight (44%) and 43% of fat. This low carbohydrate intake changes the energy source from glucose to ketone bodies. Moreover, clinical trials have consistently shown a beneficial effect of VLCKD in several diseases, such as heart failure, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, and obesity, among others. The gut microbiota has been associated with the metabolic conditions of a person and is regulated by diet interactions; furthermore, it has been shown that the microbiota has a role in body weight homeostasis by regulating metabolism, appetite, and energy. Currently, there is increasing evidence of an association between gut microbiota dysbiosis and the pathophysiology of obesity. In addition, the molecular pathways, the role of metabolites, and how microbiota modulation could be beneficial remain unclear, and more research is needed. The objective of the present article is to contribute with an overview of the impact that VLCKD has on the intestinal microbiota composition of individuals with obesity through a literature review describing the latest research regarding the topic and highlighting which bacteria phyla are associated with obesity and VLCKD.

Vaccines for the common cold.

BACKGROUND: The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat, and fever (usually < 37.8 ºC). Whilst the common cold is generally not harmful, it is a cause of economic burden due to school and work absenteeism. In the United States, economic loss due to the common cold is estimated at more than USD 40 billion per year, including an estimate of 70 million workdays missed by employees, 189 million school days missed by children, and 126 million workdays missed by parents caring for children with a cold. Additionally, data from Europe show that the total cost per episode may be up to EUR 1102. There is also a large expenditure due to inappropriate antimicrobial prescription. Vaccine development for the common cold has been difficult due to antigenic variability of the common cold viruses; even bacteria can act as infective agents. Uncertainty remains regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people, thus we performed an update of this Cochrane Review, which was first published in 2011 and updated in 2013 and 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (April 2022), MEDLINE (1948 to April 2022), Embase (1974 to April 2022), CINAHL (1981 to April 2022), and LILACS (1982 to April 2022). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies, and four websites for additional trials (April 2022). We did not impose any language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccine compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane's Screen4Me workflow to assess the initial search results. Four review authors independently performed title and abstract screening to identify potentially relevant studies. We retrieved the full-text articles for those studies deemed potentially relevant, and the review authors independently screened the full-text reports for inclusion in the review, recording reasons for exclusion of the excluded studies. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author when needed. Two review authors independently collected data on a data extraction form, resolving any disagreements by consensus or by involving a third review author. We double-checked data transferred into Review Manager 5 software. Three review authors independently assessed risk of bias using RoB 1 tool as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We did not conduct a meta-analysis, and we did not assess publication bias. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the certainty of the evidence and to create a summary of findings table.  MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT conducted in 1965 with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy young men in a military facility, all of whom were included in the analyses, and compared the effect of three adenovirus vaccines (live, inactivated type 4, and inactivated type 4 and 7) against a placebo (injection of physiological saline or gelatin capsule). There were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccine group, and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group. Overall, we do not know if there is a difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, no difference in adverse events when comparing live vaccine preparation with placebo was reported. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low due to unclear risk of bias, indirectness because the population of this study was only young men, and imprecision because confidence intervals were wide and the number of events was low. The included study did not assess vaccine-related or all-cause mortality.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review was based on one study with very low-certainty evidence, which showed that there may be no difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Future trials on interventions for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition, and should measure such outcomes as common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality (all-cause and related to the vaccine).

Vaccines for the common cold.

BACKGROUND: The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat, and fever (usually < 37.8º C). The widespread morbidity caused by the common cold worldwide is related to its ubiquitousness rather than its severity. The development of vaccines for the common cold has been difficult because of antigenic variability of the common cold virus and the indistinguishable multiple other viruses and even bacteria acting as infective agents. There is uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and previously updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (September 2016), MEDLINE (1948 to September 2016), Embase (1974 to September 2016), CINAHL (1981 to September 2016), and LILACS (1982 to September 2016). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies and four websites for additional trials (February 2017). We included no language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccines compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted trial data. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by consulting a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: We found no additional RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT dating from the 1960s with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy participants, all of whom were included in analyses. This trial compared the effect of an adenovirus vaccine against placebo. No statistically significant difference in common cold incidence was found: there were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccines group and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; P = 0.90). No adverse events related to the live vaccine were reported. The quality of the evidence was low due to limitations in methodological quality and a wide 95% confidence interval. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review was based on one study with low-quality evidence. We found no conclusive results to support the use of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people compared with placebo. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Any future trials on medical treatments for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition. Outcome measures should include common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality related to the vaccine.

Vaccines for the common cold.

BACKGROUND: The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat and fever (usually < 37.8˚C). The widespread morbidity it causes worldwide is related to its ubiquitousness rather than its severity. The development of vaccines for the common cold has been difficult because of antigenic variability of the common cold virus and the indistinguishable multiple other viruses and even bacteria acting as infective agents. There is uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2012, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1948 to January week 1, 2013), EMBASE (1974 to January 2013), CINAHL (1981 to January 2013) and LILACS (1982 to January 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccines to prevent the common cold in healthy people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted trial data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: This review included one RCT with 2307 healthy participants; all of them were analysed. This trial compared the effect of an adenovirus vaccine against a placebo. No statistically significant difference in common cold incidence was found: there were 13 events in 1139 participants in the vaccines group and 14 events in 1168 participants in the placebo group; risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 2.02, P = 0.90). No adverse events related to the live vaccine were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane review has found a lack of evidence on the effects of vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Only one RCT was found and this did not show differences between comparison groups; it also had a high risk of bias. There are no conclusive data to support the use of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. We identified the need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Unless RCTs provide evidence of a treatment effect and the trade-off between potential benefits and harms is established, policy-makers, clinicians and academics should not recommend the use of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. Any future trials on medical treatments for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition. Outcome measures should include common cold incidence, vaccine safety and mortality related to the vaccine.

Reaçäo anafilactóide por veneno de abelha em pacientes com mastocitose / Anaphylactoid reaction to the bee venom in a patient with mastocitosis

Objetivo: Apresentar um caso de reaçao anafilactoide por veneno de abelha em um paciente com Mastocitose cutânea. Método: Avaliaçao clínica, exames laboratoriais e pesquisa de IgE específica ao veneno de abelha pela técnica do RAST (radioallergosorbent test) e biópsia cutânea. Resultados: A biópsia confirmou o diagnóstico de Mastocitose cutânea e a IgE especifica ao veneno de abelha foi negativa. Conclusoes: Manifestaçoes sistêmicas por venenos de himenópteros (abelhas, vespas e formigas) com testes cutâneos e RAST negativos nao sao incomuns. A Mastocitose é caracterizada pela proliferaçao anormal de mastócitos e pela liberaçao elevada de mediadores químicos. Cinicamente pode ser restrita à pele ou pode envolver diversos órgaos como a medula óssea, baço, fígado, linfonodos, trato gastrointestinal e sistema esquelético. Neste artigo apresentamos um caso de reaçao anafilactoide por veneno de abelha em um paciente com Mastocitose cutânea.