Stable angina pectoris is experienced as trans-sternal or retro-sternal pressure or pain that may radiate to the left arm, neck or back. Although available evidence relating to its effectiveness and mechanism are weak, traditional Chinese medicine is used as an alternative therapy for stable angina pectoris. We report a protocol of a randomized controlled trial using traditional Chinese medicine to investigate the effectiveness, mechanism and safety for patients with stable angina pectoris. This is a north-east Chinese, multi-center, multi-blinded, placebo-controlled and superiority randomized trail. A total of 240 patients with stable angina pectoris will be randomly assigned to three groups: two treatment groups and a control group. The treatment groups will receive Chinese herbal medicine consisting of Yi-Qi-Jian-Pi and Qu-Tan-Hua-Zhuo granule and Yi-Qi-Jian-Pi and Qu-Tan-Hua-Yu granule, respectively, and conventional medicine. The control group will receive placebo medicine in addition to conventional medicine. All 3 groups will undergo a 12-week treatment and 2-week follow-up. Four visits in sum will be scheduled for each subject: 1 visit each in week 0, week 4, week 12 and week 14. The primary outcomes include: the frequency of angina pectoris attack; the dosage of nitroglycerin; body limited dimension of Seattle Angina Questionnaire. The secondary outcomes include: except for the body limited dimension of SAQ, traditional Chinese medicine pattern questionnaire and so on. Therapeutic mechanism outcomes, safety outcomes and endpoint outcomes will be also assessed. The primary aim of this trial is to develop a standard protocol to utilize high-quality EBM evidence for assessing the effectiveness and safety of SAP via TCM pattern differentiation as well as exploring the efficacy mechanism and regulation with the molecular biology and systems biology. Clinical Trials Registration: ChiCTR-TRC-13003608 , registered 18 June 2013.

Background: Exercise-based Cardiac Rehabilitation (EBCR) is widely recognized as a crucial intervention for improving the health outcomes of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, its implementation remains insufficient in many regions, and patient adherence to EBCR is generally low. This limitation hinders the full potential of rehabilitation, necessitating a deeper exploration of the factors influencing exercise adherence and the development of targeted intervention strategies. Objective: This study aims to identify the barriers and facilitators affecting ERCR adherence among CAD patients and provide intervention recommendations for clinical practice. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across nine databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM. Using the Theoretical Domains Framework and the COM-B model, a thematic analysis was performed to categorize influencing factors identified in the included studies. These factors were mapped onto the Behaviour Change Wheel, and the APEASE criteria were applied to determine appropriate intervention functions. Finally, Behaviour Change Techniques were matched to these intervention functions. Results: Seventeen studies were included, identifying multiple core domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework influencing EBCR adherence. The most significant domains were social influences, beliefs about consequences, and environmental context and resources. The primary barrier was patients’ negative attitudes toward EBCR, whereas the most prominent facilitator was a strong social support network. Conclusion: This study systematically analyzed the determinants of EBCR adherence based on the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B model, constructing theoretically supported intervention strategies and providing new insights for optimizing EBCR implementation. Through precise Behaviour Change Techniques mapping, the proposed personalized interventions can enhance patients’ motivation for rehabilitation, improve EBCR adherence, and offer empirical support for future EBCR intervention design and implementation.

Background: Depression and coronary heart disease (CHD) have common risk mechanisms. Common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) may be associated with the risk of depression combined with coronary heart disease.Methods: This study was designed according to the PRISMA-P guidelines. We will include case-control studies and cohort studies investigating the relationship between gene SNPs and depression and coronary heart disease comorbidities. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) will be used to assess the risk of bias. When measuring dichotomous outcomes, we will use the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CIs) in a case-control study. Five genetic models (allele model, homozygous model, co-dominant model, dominant model, and recessive model) will be evaluated for each included study. Subgroup analysis by ethnicity will be performed. If necessary, post hoc analysis will be made according to different types.Results: A total of 13 studies were included in this study, and the types of genes included are FKBP5 and SGK1 genes that act on glucocorticoid; miR-146a, IL-4-589, IL-6-174, TNF-α-308, CRP-717 genes that act on inflammatory mechanisms; eNOS genes from endothelial cells; HSP70 genes that act on the autoimmune response; ACE2 and MAS1 genes that act to mediate Ang(1-7) in the RAS system; 5-HTTLPR gene responsible for the transport of serotonin 5-HT and neurotrophic factor BDNF gene. There were three studies on 5-HTTLPR and BDNF genes, respectively, while there was only one study targeting FKBP5, SGK1, miR-146a, IL-4-589, IL-6-174, TNF-alpha-308, CRP-717, eNOS, HSP70, ACE2, and MAS1 genes. We did not perform a meta-analysis for genes reported in a single study, and meta-analysis was performed separately for studies exploring the 5-HTTLPR and BDNF genes. The results showed that for the 5-HTTLPR gene, there was a statistically significant association between 5-HTTLPR gene polymorphisms and depression in combination with coronary diseases (CHD-D) under the co-dominant model (LS vs LL: OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.20-2.59; SS vs LL: OR 2.80, 95%CI 1.45 to 5.41), the dominant model (LS+SS vs LL: OR 2.06, 95%CI 1.44 to 2.96), and the homozygous model (SS vs LL: OR 2.80 95%CI 1.45 to 5.5.41) were statistically significant for CHD-D, demonstrating that polymorphisms in the 5-HTTLPR gene are associated with the development of CHD-D and that the S allele in the 5-HTTLPR gene is likely to be a risk factor for CHD-D. For the BDNF gene, there were no significant differences between one of the co-dominant gene models (AA vs GG: OR 6.63, 95%CI 1.44 to 30.64), the homozygous gene model (AA vs GG: OR 6.63,95% CI 1.44 to 30.64), the dominant gene model (GA+AA vs GG: OR4.29, 95%CI 1.05 to 17.45), recessive gene model (AA vs GG+GA: OR 2.71, 95%CI 1.16 to 6.31), and allele model (A vs G: OR 2.59, 95%CI 1.18 to 5.67) were statistically significant for CHD-D, demonstrating that BDNFrs6265 gene polymorphisms are associated with the CHD-D development and that the A allele in the BDNFrs6265 gene is likely to be a risk factor for CHD-D. We analyzed the allele frequencies of SNPs reported in a single study and found that the SNPs in the microRNA146a gene rs2910164, the SNPs in the ACE2 gene rs2285666 and the SNPs in the SGK1 gene rs1743963 and rs1763509 were risk factors for the development of CHD-D. We performed a subgroup analysis of three studies involving the BDNFrs6265 gene. The results showed that European populations were more at risk of developing CHD-D than Asian populations in both dominant model (GA+AA vs GG: OR 10.47, 95%CI 3.53 to 31.08) and co-dominant model (GA vs GG: OR 6.40, 95%CI 1.98 to 20.73), with statistically significant differences. In contrast, the studies involving the 5-HTTLPR gene were all Asian populations, so subgroup analyses were not performed. We performed sensitivity analyses of studies exploring the 5-HTTLPR and BDNF rs6265 genes. The results showed that the results of the allele model, the dominant model, the recessive model, the homozygous model and the co-dominant model for both 5-HTTLPR and BDNF rs6265 genes were stable. Due to the limited number of studies of the 5-HTTLPR and BDNF genes, it was not possible to determine the symmetry of the funnel plot using Begg’s funnel plot and Egger’s test. Therefore, we did not assess publication bias.Discussion: SNPs of the microRNA146a gene at rs2910164, the ACE2 gene at the rs2285666 and the SGK1 gene at rs1743963 and rs1763509, and the SNPs at the 5-HTTLPR and BDNF gene loci are associated with the onset of comorbid depression in coronary heart disease. We recommend that future research focus on studying SNPs’ impact on comorbid depression in coronary heart disease, specifically targeting the 5-HTTLPR and BDNF gene at rs6265.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021229371.

Aluminium adjuvants are commonly used in vaccines to boost the effects of vaccination. Here, we assessed the benefits and harms of different aluminium adjuvants vs. other aluminium adjuvants or vs. the same aluminium adjuvant at other concentrations, administered a different number of doses, or at different particle sizes used in vaccines or vaccine excipients. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis to assess the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We obtained data from major medical databases until 20 January 2023 and included 10 randomized clinical trials of healthy volunteers. The comparisons assessed higher vs. lower aluminium adjuvant concentrations; higher vs. lower number of doses of aluminium adjuvant; and aluminium phosphate adjuvant vs. aluminium hydroxide adjuvant. For all three comparisons, meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and adverse events considered non-serious. The certainty of evidence was low to very low. None of the included trials reported on quality of life or proportion of participants who developed the disease being vaccinated against. The benefits and harms of different types of aluminium adjuvants, different aluminium concentrations, different number of doses, or different particle sizes, therefore, remain uncertain.