Antihypertensive and antioxidant effects of dietary black sesame meal in pre-hypertensive humans

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been known that hypertension is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). CVD is the major cause of morbidity and mortality in developed and developing countries. Elevation of blood pressure (BP) increases the adverse effect for cardiovascular outcomes. Prevention of increased BP plays a crucial role in a reduction of those outcomes, leading to a decrease in mortality. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of dietary black sesame meal on BP and oxidative stress in individuals with prehypertension.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twenty-two women and eight men (aged 49.8 ± 6.6 years) with prehypertension were randomly divided into two groups, 15 subjects per group. They ingested 2.52 g black sesame meal capsules or placebo capsules each day for 4 weeks. Blood samples were obtained after overnight fasting for measurement of plasma lipid, malondialdehyde (MDA) and vitamin E levels. Anthropometry, body composition and BP were measured before and after 4-week administration of black sesame meal or a placebo.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The results showed that 4-week administration of black sesame meal significantly decreased systolic BP (129.3 ± 6.8 vs. 121.0 ± 9.0 mmHg, <it>P </it>< 0.05) and MDA level (1.8 ± 0.6 vs. 1.2 ± 0.6 μmol/L, <it>P </it>< 0.05), and increased vitamin E level (29.4 ± 6.0 vs. 38.2 ± 7.8 μmol/L, <it>P </it>< 0.01). In the black sesame meal group, the change in SBP tended to be positively related to the change in MDA (<it>R = 0.50, P </it>= 0.05), while the change in DBP was negatively related to the change in vitamin E (<it>R = -0.55, P </it>< 0.05). There were no correlations between changes in BP and oxidative stress in the control group.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These results suggest the possible antihypertensive effects of black sesame meal on improving antioxidant status and decreasing oxidant stress. These data may imply a beneficial effect of black sesame meal on prevention of CVD.</p

The use of race, ethnicity and ancestry in human genetic research

Post-Human Genome Project progress has enabled a new wave of population genetic research, and intensified controversy over the use of race/ethnicity in this work. At the same time, the development of methods for inferring genetic ancestry offers more empirical means of assigning group labels. Here, we provide a systematic analysis of the use of race/ethnicity and ancestry in current genetic research. We base our analysis on key published recommendations for the use and reporting of race/ethnicity which advise that researchers: explain why the terms/categories were used and how they were measured, carefully define them, and apply them consistently. We studied 170 population genetic research articles from high impact journals, published 2008–2009. A comparative perspective was obtained by aligning study metrics with similar research from articles published 2001–2004. Our analysis indicates a marked improvement in compliance with some of the recommendations/guidelines for the use of race/ethnicity over time, while showing that important shortfalls still remain: no article using ‘race’, ‘ethnicity’ or ‘ancestry’ defined or discussed the meaning of these concepts in context; a third of articles still do not provide a rationale for their use, with those using ‘ancestry’ being the least likely to do so. Further, no article discussed potential socio-ethical implications of the reported research. As such, there remains a clear imperative for highlighting the importance of consistent and comprehensive reporting on human populations to the genetics/genomics community globally, to generate explicit guidelines for the uses of ancestry and genetic ancestry, and importantly, to ensure that guidelines are followed

Physician privacy concerns when disclosing patient data for public health purposes during a pandemic influenza outbreak

Background: Privacy concerns by providers have been a barrier to disclosing patient information for public health\ud purposes. This is the case even for mandated notifiable disease reporting. In the context of a pandemic it has been\ud argued that the public good should supersede an individual’s right to privacy. The precise nature of these provider\ud privacy concerns, and whether they are diluted in the context of a pandemic are not known. Our objective was to\ud understand the privacy barriers which could potentially influence family physicians’ reporting of patient-level\ud surveillance data to public health agencies during the Fall 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza outbreak.\ud Methods: Thirty seven family doctors participated in a series of five focus groups between October 29-31 2009.\ud They also completed a survey about the data they were willing to disclose to public health units. Descriptive\ud statistics were used to summarize the amount of patient detail the participants were willing to disclose, factors that\ud would facilitate data disclosure, and the consensus on those factors. The analysis of the qualitative data was based\ud on grounded theory.\ud Results: The family doctors were reluctant to disclose patient data to public health units. This was due to concerns\ud about the extent to which public health agencies are dependable to protect health information (trusting beliefs),\ud and the possibility of loss due to disclosing health information (risk beliefs). We identified six specific actions that\ud public health units can take which would affect these beliefs, and potentially increase the willingness to disclose\ud patient information for public health purposes.\ud Conclusions: The uncertainty surrounding a pandemic of a new strain of influenza has not changed the privacy\ud concerns of physicians about disclosing patient data. It is important to address these concerns to ensure reliable\ud reporting during future outbreaks.University of Ottawa Open Access Author Fun

A Core Outcome Set for Pediatric Critical Care

Objectives: More children are surviving critical illness but are at risk of residual or new health conditions. An evidence-informed and stakeholder-recommended core outcome set is lacking for pediatric critical care outcomes. Our objective was to create a multinational, multistakeholder-recommended pediatric critical care core outcome set for inclusion in clinical and research programs.Design: A two-round modified Delphi electronic survey was conducted with 333 invited research, clinical, and family/advocate stakeholders. Stakeholders completing the first round were invited to participate in the second. Outcomes scoring greater than 69% “critical” and less than 15% “not important” advanced to round 2 with write-in outcomes considered. The Steering Committee held a virtual consensus conference to determine the final components.Setting: Multinational survey.Patients: Stakeholder participants from six continents representing clinicians, researchers, and family/advocates.Measurements and Main Results: Overall response rates were 75% and 82% for each round. Participants voted on seven Global Domains and 45 Specific Outcomes in round 1, and six Global Domains and 30 Specific Outcomes in round 2. Using overall (three stakeholder groups combined) results, consensus was defined as outcomes scoring greater than 90% “critical” and less than 15% “not important” and were included in the final PICU core outcome set: four Global Domains (Cognitive, Emotional, Physical, and Overall Health) and four Specific Outcomes (Child Health-Related Quality of Life, Pain, Survival, and Communication). Families (n = 21) suggested additional critically important outcomes that did not meet consensus, which were included in the PICU core outcome set—extended.Conclusions: The PICU core outcome set and PICU core outcome set—extended are multistakeholder-recommended resources for clinical and research programs that seek to improve outcomes for children with critical illness and their families

Race and ethnicity in genetic research

Use of race and ethnicity terms in genetic research continues to generate controversy. Despite differing opinions about their basis or relevance, there is some agreement that investigators using these terms should: explain why the terms or categories were used, define them carefully, and apply them consistently. An important question is whether these recommendations are reflected in practice. Here we addressed this question based on 330 randomly selected articles published between 2001 and 2004 that reported on genetic research and used one or more words from a defined list of race, ethnicity, or population terms. The recommendation that authors using race or ethnicity terms explain the basis for assigning them to study populations was met infrequently (9.1%), and articles that used race and ethnicity as variables were no more likely than those that used them only to label a sample to provide these details. No article defined or discussed the concepts of race or ethnicity. With limited exceptions, current practice does not reflect repeated recommendations for using race or ethnicity terms in genetic research. This study provides a baseline against which to measure future trends