0
selected
-
1.
Efficacy and Safety of Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract in the Treatment of Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trial.
Zeng, L, Yang, T, Yang, K, Yu, G, Li, J, Xiang, W, Chen, H
Frontiers in immunology. 2022;13:891822
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Arthritic disease is a chronic inflammatory condition affecting one or more joints. Over 100 different forms of arthritis have been identified. Despite their different causes (i.e. degenerative, autoimmune), they share common symptoms such as joint pain, swelling, stiffness, and reduced mobility, which can be disabling in many cases. Drug treatment focuses mainly on limiting the progression of the disease, reducing joint inflammation and managing pain. However, these drugs are associated with many side effects. The rhizome of Curcuma longa (CL), also known as turmeric, has longstanding use as an anti-inflammatory in traditional Asian medicines. Research has affirmed its anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive properties. Evidence from multiple clinical trials suggests that curcumin, one of the active compounds of CL, can reduce the subjective experience of pain in some conditions and can also improve the symptoms and inflammation associated with arthritis. Hence this systematic review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CL-extract in 5 types of arthritis (including Ankylosing Spondylitis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Osteoarthritis, Juvenile idiopathic arthritis and gout). The review included 29 randomized controlled trials involving 2396 participants, with dosages ranging from 120 mg to 1500 mg for a period of 4-36 weeks. Overall, curcumin and CL extract appeared to improve inflammation and pain levels in arthritic subjects whilst demonstrating safety with no increases in adverse effects. CL and its active constituents appeared to favourably change immune and inflammatory responses, as well as serum uric acid levels in the reviewed forms of arthritis. However, due to the small sample numbers in the trials and some lower quality studies, the authors advocate to interpret the results with caution until more solid evidence is available.
Abstract
Background: Modern pharmacological research found that the chemical components of Curcuma longa L. are mainly curcumin and turmeric volatile oil. Several recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have shown that curcumin improves symptoms and inflammation in patients with arthritis. Methods: Pubmed, Cochran Library, CNKI, and other databases were searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Then, the risk of bias of RCTs were assessed and data of RCTs were extracted. Finally, RevMan 5.3 was utilized for meta-analysis. Results: Twenty-nine (29) RCTs involving 2396 participants and 5 types of arthritis were included. The arthritis included Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS), Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Osteoarthritis (OA), Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and gout/hyperuricemia. Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract were administered in doses ranging from 120 mg to 1500 mg for a duration of 4-36 weeks. In general, Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract showed safety in all studies and improved the severity of inflammation and pain levels in these arthritis patients. However, more RCTs are needed in the future to elucidate the effect of Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract supplementation in patients with arthritis, including RA, OA, AS and JIA. Conclusion: Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract may improve symptoms and inflammation levels in people with arthritis. However, due to the low quality and small quantity of RCTs, the conclusions need to be interpreted carefully.
-
2.
Clinical applications of detecting IgG, IgM or IgA antibody for the diagnosis of COVID-19: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
Chen, M, Qin, R, Jiang, M, Yang, Z, Wen, W, Li, J
International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases. 2021;104:415-422
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
The rapidly spreading nature of COVID-19 has put an emphasis on the importance of fast diagnosis. Gold standard diagnosis is through reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests, which aims to detect the presence of COVID-19. However, challenges with collection techniques and when in the disease lifecycle these tests are taken, can affect their reliability, highlighting a need for alternative methods of testing. Other testing methods exist, which involve testing the body’s own immune response to the presence of COVID-19, however these may also have their limitations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of testing the body’s own immune reaction for the presence of COVID-19. The results showed that testing the body’s immune reaction was effective, however if the person being tested is at an early stage in the disease, then it may be misdiagnosed. This study could be used by healthcare professionals to understand that the use of any type of COVID-19 testing may have its limitations, and although a person may test negative, there is still a possibility that they have the infection if symptoms exist
Abstract
BACKGROUND The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating impact worldwide, and timely detection and quarantine of infected patients are critical to prevent spread of disease. Serological antibody testing is an important diagnostic method used increasingly in clinics, although its clinical application is still under investigation. METHODS A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the diagnostic performance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 antibody tests in patients with COVID-19. The test results analysed included: (1) IgM-positive but IgG-negative (IgM+IgG-); (2) IgG-positive but IgM-negative (IgG+IgM-); (3) both IgM-positive and IgG-positive (IgM+IgG+); (4) IgM-positive without IgG information (IgM+IgG+/-); (5) IgG-positive without IgM information (IgG+IgM+/-); (6) either IgM-positive or IgG-positive (IgM+ or IgG+); and (7) IgA-positive (IgA+). RESULTS Sixty-eight studies were included. Pooled sensitivities for IgM+IgG-, IgG+IgM-, IgM+IgG+, IgM+IgG+/-, IgG+IgM+/-, and IgM+ or IgG+ were 6%, 7%, 53%, 68%, 73% and 79% respectively. Pooled specificities ranged from 98% to 100%. IgA+ had a pooled sensitivity of 78% but a relatively low specificity of 88%. Tests conducted 2 weeks after symptom onset showed better diagnostic accuracy than tests conducted earlier. Chemiluminescence immunoassay and detection of S protein as the antigen could offer more accurate diagnostic results. DISCUSSION These findings support the supplemental role of serological antibody tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, their capacity to diagnose COVID-19 early in the disease course could be limited.
-
3.
Short- and potential long-term adverse health outcomes of COVID-19: a rapid review.
Leung, TYM, Chan, AYL, Chan, EW, Chan, VKY, Chui, CSL, Cowling, BJ, Gao, L, Ge, MQ, Hung, IFN, Ip, MSM, et al
Emerging microbes & infections. 2020;9(1):2190-2199
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
The Coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19) has infected millions of people worldwide and there is evidence that it affects many systems in the human body. This rapid review summarises the current evidence on short-term negative health outcomes of Covid-19. It also assesses the risk of potential long-term negative effects by looking at data from the other coronaviruses; Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The burden for caring for Covid-19 survivors is likely to be huge and so policy makers need suitable data to put the appropriate care strategies in place. The review is divided into sections as per body system affected: Immune, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hepatic and renal, neurological, dermatological, mental health, pregnancy and prenatal exposure. The evidence (short-term and long-term) is then reviewed by experts in those fields. Further large-scale studies are needed to monitor the adverse effects and to measure the long-term health consequences.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in millions of patients infected worldwide and indirectly affecting even more individuals through disruption of daily living. Long-term adverse outcomes have been reported with similar diseases from other coronaviruses, namely Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Emerging evidence suggests that COVID-19 adversely affects different systems in the human body. This review summarizes the current evidence on the short-term adverse health outcomes and assesses the risk of potential long-term adverse outcomes of COVID-19. Major adverse outcomes were found to affect different body systems: immune system (including but not limited to Guillain-Barré syndrome and paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome), respiratory system (lung fibrosis and pulmonary thromboembolism), cardiovascular system (cardiomyopathy and coagulopathy), neurological system (sensory dysfunction and stroke), as well as cutaneous and gastrointestinal manifestations, impaired hepatic and renal function. Mental health in patients with COVID-19 was also found to be adversely affected. The burden of caring for COVID-19 survivors is likely to be huge. Therefore, it is important for policy makers to develop comprehensive strategies in providing resources and capacity in the healthcare system. Future epidemiological studies are needed to further investigate the long-term impact on COVID-19 survivors.
-
4.
The Efficacy of Probiotics, Prebiotic Inulin-Type Fructans, and Synbiotics in Human Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Astó, E, Méndez, I, Audivert, S, Farran-Codina, A, Espadaler, J
Nutrients. 2019;11(2)
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
It is thought that ulcerative colitis (UC) may be caused by an excessive immune response to endogenous bacteria in genetically predisposed individuals, and therefore that manipulating of the gut flora may be of benefit. Microbial diversity and intestinal microbiota stability are lower in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (including UC), than in healthy people. This systematic review and metanalysis looked at clinical trials using probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics (a combination of pro- and prebiotics) in UC. 18 papers were included, with a total of 1491 adult and 69 children. 16 of these were on probiotics, one on prebiotics and one on synbiotics. Outcomes considered in this systematic review were the effects on short chain fatty acids (SCFAs, metabolic end products of gut bacteria which have a beneficial effect on immune and gut health), inflammation levels, composition of faecal microbiota and UC remission. In trials on inactive UC patients, the faecal concentration of SCFAs did not differ significantly between the probiotic and placebo groups, whilst in trials with active UC patients, SCFAs significantly increased after probiotic supplementation. All studies reported a significant reduction in inflammation. Meta-analysis of studies which looked at induction/maintenance of remission by probiotics showed that this depends on a) the type of disease activity score used to assess remission, and b) the type of probiotics used, with bifidobacteria containing probiotics, VSL3 and Mutaflor showing benefits, but studies without bifidobacteria being no different from placebo. The authors conclude that bifidobacteria containing probiotics seem to be beneficial in terms of reaching remission in patients with UC, although there is insufficient information on necessary dose and duration of treatment. They note that there are only few studies on prebiotics and synbiotics and are calling for a standardisation of scales to assess remission.
Abstract
Studies of probiotics, fructan-type prebiotics, and synbiotics in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) show significant heterogeneity in methodology and results. Here, we study the efficacy of such interventions and the reasons for the heterogeneity of their results. Eligible random controlled trials were collected from the PUBMED and SCOPUS databases. A total of 18 placebo-controlled and active treatment-controlled (i.e., mesalazine) studies were selected with a Jadad score ≥ 3, including 1491 patients with UC. Data for prebiotics and synbiotics were sparse and consequently these studies were excluded from the meta-analysis. The UC remission efficacy of probiotics was measured in terms of relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR). Significant effects were observed in patients with active UC whenever probiotics containing bifidobacteria were used, or when adopting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended scales (UC Disease Activity Index and Disease Activity Index). By the FDA recommended scales, the RR was 1.55 (CI95%: 1.13⁻2.15, p-value = 0.007, I² = 29%); for bifidobacteria-containing probiotics, the RR was 1.73 (CI95%: 1.23⁻2.43, p-value = 0.002, I² = 35%). No significant effects were observed on the maintenance of remission for placebo-controlled or mesalazine-controlled studies. We conclude that a validated scale is necessary to determine the state of patients with UC. However, probiotics containing bifidobacteria are promising for the treatment of active UC.
-
5.
Extra Dose of Vitamin C Based on a Daily Supplementation Shortens the Common Cold: A Meta-Analysis of 9 Randomized Controlled Trials.
Ran, L, Zhao, W, Wang, J, Wang, H, Zhao, Y, Tseng, Y, Bu, H
BioMed research international. 2018;2018:1837634
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
The common cold poses a heavy burden worldwide, in terms of human health and economic losses. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether vitamin C could be used for relieving symptoms, shortening the duration, or reducing the incidence of the common cold. Nine randomised controlled trials conducted between 1950 and 2001 were included in the meta-analysis. No statistically significant effects were found when vitamin C was only started at the onset of symptoms, but regular supplementation with therapeutic doses of vitamin C at the onset of illness shortened the duration of the common cold and the time confined indoors, and relieved the symptoms, including chest pain, fever and chills. Based on this meta-analysis the authors recommend a small daily dose of vitamin C (no more than 1.0g/day) to support immunity and a larger dose of vitamin C during the common cold (a larger dose than before, usually 3.0 g/day to 4.0 g/day) to better recover health.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate whether vitamin C is effective in the treatment of the common cold. METHOD After systematically searching the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Elsevier, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP databases, and WANFANG databases, 9 randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis in RevMan 5.3 software, all of which were in English. RESULTS In the evaluation of vitamin C, administration of extra therapeutic doses at the onset of cold despite routine supplementation was found to help reduce its duration (mean difference (MD) = -0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-1.03, -0.10], and P = 0.02), shorten the time of confinement indoors (MD = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.62, -0.19], and P = 0.0002), and relieve the symptoms associated with it, including chest pain (MD = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.77, -0.03], and P = 0.03), fever (MD = -0.45, 95% CI [-0.78, -0.11], and P = 0.009), and chills (MD = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.07], and P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Extra doses of vitamin C could benefit some patients who contract the common cold despite taking daily vitamin C supplements.