Objective:To assess the application effects of an energy-restricted diet combined with high-protein, high-dietary-fiber meal replacement powder and probiotics in overweight/obese adults.Methods:It was a randomized controlled trial. A consecutive sample of 150 overweight/obese adults who underwent physical examinations at the Health Care Center of the First Hospital of Hebei Medical University between November 2021 and March 2022. The participants were randomly assigned into the combined group, the high-protein group, and the common group (50 participants per group) using a random number table method. All three groups of subjects received weight loss health education, energy-restricted diet, and interventions with meal replacement powder and probiotics (or probiotic placebo). The combined group was given high-protein and high-dietary fiber meal replacement powder and probiotics. The high-protein group was given high-protein meal replacement powder and probiotic placebo. The common group was given ordinary meal replacement powder and probiotic placebo. The meal replacement powder was packaged in 35 g per bag, with main components of varying amounts of protein, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins, and trace elements. Both the probiotic powder and the probiotic placebo came in 2 g sachets. The primary components of probiotic powder were various Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus and excipients, while the main component of probiotic placebo was excipients. The meal replacement powder and the probiotic powder or probiotic placebo were taken twice a day for a total of 12 weeks, one sachet of each time, followed by a 4-week follow-up. The body weight, body mass index, body fat mass, abdominal circumference and hip circumference were measured before the trial (week 0) and at the end of weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. The change rates of each indicator were calculated. Biochemical indicators, trace elements, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were measured at the end of week 0, 4, 8, and 12. A product evaluation questionnaire was conducted at the end of week 12. A total of 19 cases dropped out due to various reasons. Finally, 46 cases in the combined group, 42 cases in the high-protein group, and 43 cases in the common group were included in the analysis. Paired-samples t test, Kruskal-Wallis H test, one-way analysis of variance, and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the differences in weight-loss and maintenance effects, safety and patient acceptance among the three intervention groups, and to analyze the application effect of the energy-restricted diet combined with high-protein and high-dietary fiber meal replacement powder plus probiotics in overweight/obese adults. Results:Among the 131 overweight/obese adults included in the analysis, there were 57 males and 74 females, with a mean age of (37.30±8.33) years. By the end of the week 12, the body mass index [26.87(25.77, 30.38) vs 29.61(27.96, 33.09) kg/m2; 27.10(24.70, 31.37) vs 29.40(27.20, 34.17) kg/m2; 27.98(26.43, 30.12) vs 29.88(28.22, 31.93) kg/m2] and body fat masses [22.15(17.70, 30.15) vs 30.75(25.63, 35.40) kg; 23.35(19.12, 28.70) vs 29.45(26.20, 37.05) kg; 26.80(24.10, 31.60) vs 30.00(26.00, 34.70) kg] in the combined group, the high-protein group and the common group were all lower than those at baseline (week 0) (all P<0.05). At the end of the week 12, the change rates of body fat mass and body mass index in the combined group were both higher than those in the high-protein group and the common group [(25.98%±9.58%) vs (23.88%±11.15%) and (9.35%±11.00%), 9.29%(7.23%, 11.58%) vs 7.96% (5.51%, 10.92%) and 5.77% (2.68%, 10.03%)] (all P<0.05). At the end of the week 12, the body fat mass in the combined group and the high-protein group were both lower than that in the common group [22.15(17.70, 30.15), 23.35(19.12, 28.70) vs 26.80(24.10, 31.60) kg] (both P<0.05). At the end of the week 12, the decreased values of uric acid and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in the combined group were both higher than those in the high-protein group and the common group [17.15(13.02, 23.45) vs 1.50(0.22, 28.60) and 4.20(0.15, 19.95) μmol/L, 0.43(0.24, 0.60) vs 0.21(0.06, 0.43) and 0.28(-0.04, 0.88) mg/L](both P<0.05). No serious adverse events were observed during the intervention period and at the end of the intervention. In the product evaluation questionnaire, the combined group scored higher than the high-protein group and the common group on items such as usage frequency, taste, satiety, willingness to continue use, willingness to recommend to others, and willingness to purchase [4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(2, 4) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(2, 4) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(3, 3) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(3, 4) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(3, 3) points, 3(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(2, 3) points] (all P<0.05). Conclusion:An energy-restricted diet combined with high-protein, high-dietary-fiber meal replacement powder and probiotics demonstrates superior weight-loss and weight-maintenance effects in overweight/obese adults, with high safety and great user acceptability.

Objective:To assess the application effects of an energy-restricted diet combined with high-protein, high-dietary-fiber meal replacement powder and probiotics in overweight/obese adults.Methods:It was a randomized controlled trial. A consecutive sample of 150 overweight/obese adults who underwent physical examinations at the Health Care Center of the First Hospital of Hebei Medical University between November 2021 and March 2022. The participants were randomly assigned into the combined group, the high-protein group, and the common group (50 participants per group) using a random number table method. All three groups of subjects received weight loss health education, energy-restricted diet, and interventions with meal replacement powder and probiotics (or probiotic placebo). The combined group was given high-protein and high-dietary fiber meal replacement powder and probiotics. The high-protein group was given high-protein meal replacement powder and probiotic placebo. The common group was given ordinary meal replacement powder and probiotic placebo. The meal replacement powder was packaged in 35 g per bag, with main components of varying amounts of protein, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins, and trace elements. Both the probiotic powder and the probiotic placebo came in 2 g sachets. The primary components of probiotic powder were various Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus and excipients, while the main component of probiotic placebo was excipients. The meal replacement powder and the probiotic powder or probiotic placebo were taken twice a day for a total of 12 weeks, one sachet of each time, followed by a 4-week follow-up. The body weight, body mass index, body fat mass, abdominal circumference and hip circumference were measured before the trial (week 0) and at the end of weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. The change rates of each indicator were calculated. Biochemical indicators, trace elements, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were measured at the end of week 0, 4, 8, and 12. A product evaluation questionnaire was conducted at the end of week 12. A total of 19 cases dropped out due to various reasons. Finally, 46 cases in the combined group, 42 cases in the high-protein group, and 43 cases in the common group were included in the analysis. Paired-samples t test, Kruskal-Wallis H test, one-way analysis of variance, and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the differences in weight-loss and maintenance effects, safety and patient acceptance among the three intervention groups, and to analyze the application effect of the energy-restricted diet combined with high-protein and high-dietary fiber meal replacement powder plus probiotics in overweight/obese adults. Results:Among the 131 overweight/obese adults included in the analysis, there were 57 males and 74 females, with a mean age of (37.30±8.33) years. By the end of the week 12, the body mass index [26.87(25.77, 30.38) vs 29.61(27.96, 33.09) kg/m2; 27.10(24.70, 31.37) vs 29.40(27.20, 34.17) kg/m2; 27.98(26.43, 30.12) vs 29.88(28.22, 31.93) kg/m2] and body fat masses [22.15(17.70, 30.15) vs 30.75(25.63, 35.40) kg; 23.35(19.12, 28.70) vs 29.45(26.20, 37.05) kg; 26.80(24.10, 31.60) vs 30.00(26.00, 34.70) kg] in the combined group, the high-protein group and the common group were all lower than those at baseline (week 0) (all P<0.05). At the end of the week 12, the change rates of body fat mass and body mass index in the combined group were both higher than those in the high-protein group and the common group [(25.98%±9.58%) vs (23.88%±11.15%) and (9.35%±11.00%), 9.29%(7.23%, 11.58%) vs 7.96% (5.51%, 10.92%) and 5.77% (2.68%, 10.03%)] (all P<0.05). At the end of the week 12, the body fat mass in the combined group and the high-protein group were both lower than that in the common group [22.15(17.70, 30.15), 23.35(19.12, 28.70) vs 26.80(24.10, 31.60) kg] (both P<0.05). At the end of the week 12, the decreased values of uric acid and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in the combined group were both higher than those in the high-protein group and the common group [17.15(13.02, 23.45) vs 1.50(0.22, 28.60) and 4.20(0.15, 19.95) μmol/L, 0.43(0.24, 0.60) vs 0.21(0.06, 0.43) and 0.28(-0.04, 0.88) mg/L](both P<0.05). No serious adverse events were observed during the intervention period and at the end of the intervention. In the product evaluation questionnaire, the combined group scored higher than the high-protein group and the common group on items such as usage frequency, taste, satiety, willingness to continue use, willingness to recommend to others, and willingness to purchase [4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(2, 4) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(2, 4) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(3, 3) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(3, 4) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(3, 3) points, 3(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(2, 3) points] (all P<0.05). Conclusion:An energy-restricted diet combined with high-protein, high-dietary-fiber meal replacement powder and probiotics demonstrates superior weight-loss and weight-maintenance effects in overweight/obese adults, with high safety and great user acceptability.

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common primary valve lesion requiring surgery or transcatheter intervention in modern era. Its prevalence is rising rapidly as a consequence of the aging population. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as a therapy option for older high-risk symptomatic severe AS patients has emerged and is currently extending its indications towards surgery intermediate- and low-risk subjects. Considering the common characteristics of frailty and high comorbidity among AS patients, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has been proven to improve not only survival but also quality of life in previous reports. CR as a classⅠ recommendation in guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease has been widely used in clinical practice. The purpose of this article is to sort out the current CR programs for TAVR patients in global medical management, and explore the CR optimization program fit for China medical model in post COVID-19 pandemic era.

Objective:To establish the bacterial endotoxin test for HSSYO-001-3S. Methods: HSSYO-001-3S was dissolved in dimethylsulfoxide,diluted by BET water and centrifuged,and then the supernatant was used for the bacterial endotoxin test. The ex-periment was carried out according to the gel-clot technique for bacterial endotoxin inspection and the related regulations in Chinese Pharmacopoeia (2015 edition,volumeⅣ,general rule 1443). Results:HSSYO-001-3S was added with cosolvent and diluted by BET water to 1 mg·ml-1,and there was no interference effects to bacterial endotoxin test from the supernatant diluted four times or more. Conclusion:Bacterial endotoxin test can be used to control the quality of HSSYO-001-3S.