-
Pharmaceutical Biology Dec 2022Farrerol, a typical natural flavanone isolated from the traditional Chinese herb 'Man-shan-hong' [ L. (Ericaceae)] with phlegm-reducing and cough-relieving properties,...
CONTEXT
Farrerol, a typical natural flavanone isolated from the traditional Chinese herb 'Man-shan-hong' [ L. (Ericaceae)] with phlegm-reducing and cough-relieving properties, is widely used in China for treating bronchitis and asthma.
OBJECTIVE
To present the anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, vasoactive, antitumor, and antimicrobial effects of farrerol and its underlying molecular mechanisms.
METHODS
The literature was reviewed by searching PubMed, Medline, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases between 2011 and May 2021. The following key words were used: 'farrerol,' 'flavanone,' 'anti-inflammatory,' 'antioxidant,' 'vasoactive,' 'antitumor,' 'antimicrobial,' and 'molecular mechanisms'.
RESULTS
Farrerol showed anti-inflammatory effects mainly mediated via the inhibition of interleukin (IL)-6/8, IL-1β, tumour necrosis factor(TNF)-α, NF-κB, NO, COX-2, JNK1/2, AKT, PI3K, ERK1/2, p38, Keap-1, and TGF-1β. Farrerol exhibited antioxidant effects by decreasing JNK, MDA, ROS, NOX4, Bax/Bcl-2, caspase-3, p-p38 MAPK, and GSK-3β levels and enhancing Nrf2, GSH, SOD, GSH-Px, HO-1, NQO1, and p-ERK levels. The vasoactive effects of farrerol were also shown by the reduced α-SMA, NAD(P)H, p-ERK, p-Akt, mTOR, Jak2, Stat3, Bcl-2, and p38 levels, but increased OPN, occludin, ZO-1, eNOS, CaM, IP3R, and PLC levels. The antitumor effects of farrerol were evident from the reduced Bcl-2, Slug, Zeb-1, and vimentin levels but increased p27, ERK1/2, p38, caspase-9, Bax, and E-cadherin levels. Farrerol reduced α-toxin levels and increased NO production and NF-κB activity to impart antibacterial activity.
CONCLUSIONS
This review article provides a theoretical basis for further studies on farrerol, with a view to develop and utilise farrerol for treating of vascular-related diseases in the future.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Antioxidants; Chromones; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Medicine, Chinese Traditional
PubMed: 34846222
DOI: 10.1080/13880209.2021.2006723 -
Pediatric Allergy and Immunology :... Jan 2022Allergic diseases pose a health problem worldwide. Pollen are widespread aeroallergens which can cause symptoms like shortness of breath, cough, itchy eyes, or rhinitis....
BACKGROUND
Allergic diseases pose a health problem worldwide. Pollen are widespread aeroallergens which can cause symptoms like shortness of breath, cough, itchy eyes, or rhinitis. Apart from preventive measures and pharmacological treatment, also non-pharmacological interventions have been suggested to reduce symptoms. The objective of this work was to review studies investigating the effectiveness of non-pharmacologic interventions to reduce allergic symptoms.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were systematically reviewed in July 2018 and April 2020. Several authors worked on the screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts. One author for each literature search performed the data extraction and the risk of bias assessment. Studies were included if they met the inclusion criteria defined by the PECOs. Studies which investigating the effect of non-pharmacologic interventions on patients with allergic rhinitis were included.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies investigating eleven types of non-pharmacologic interventions to avoid and reduce allergic symptoms due to pollen exposure were included in this review. Out of all studies, seven studies addressed nasal rinsing and 22 included acupuncture, air filtering, artisanal tears, individual allergen avoidance advice, various nasal applications, self-hypnosis, rhinophototherapy, and wraparound sunglasses.
CONCLUSION
Most studies had a high risk of bias and small sample sizes. There were only a few high-quality studies that give hints about the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions. For future research, more high-quality studies are required to confirm the effectiveness of simple, safe, and cost-effective interventions.
Topics: Allergens; Humans; Pollen; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 34717016
DOI: 10.1111/pai.13690 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021This study was intended to provide data to support the effect of Shashen Maidong Decoction in improving pneumonia in pediatric patients through systematic evaluation....
This study was intended to provide data to support the effect of Shashen Maidong Decoction in improving pneumonia in pediatric patients through systematic evaluation. PubMed, the Web of Science, EMbase, CNKI, CQVIP, Wan-Fang, and CBM databases were comprehensively searched from established in June 2021. Randomized controlled trials of TRQI were selected by screening the literature and extracting information. The Cochrane RCT Evaluation Manual was used to evaluate the methodological quality of all included studies, and Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 and Review Manager 5.4 software. A total of 1,127 patients from 12 clinical studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis results showed that the treatment group of Shashen Maidong Decoction was able to significantly increase the overall efficiency level and significantly reduce the incidence of adverse reactions, time for disappearance of cough, time for relief of cough, time for defervescence, time for disappearance of lung rales, time for return to normal of chest X-ray, T lymphocyte subpopulation (CD3) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and other index levels ( < 0.05). Shashen Maidong Decoction has a significant improvement in the levels of relevant indexes in pediatric pneumonia, which provides a basis for the safety and efficacy of pediatric pneumonia. However, due to the small sample size included in the study, the study quality was not high, and more randomized controlled trials of high quality are required for further validation.
PubMed: 34712144
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.765656 -
Integrative Medicine Research 2021This rapid review systematically evaluated the effects of honeybee products compared to controls for the prevention, duration, severity, and recovery of acute viral... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This rapid review systematically evaluated the effects of honeybee products compared to controls for the prevention, duration, severity, and recovery of acute viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs), including SARS-CoV-2, in adults and children.
METHODS
Cochrane rapid review methods were applied. Four English databases plus preprint servers and trial registries were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The evidence was appraised and synthesized using RoB 2.0 and GRADE.
RESULTS
27 results were derived from 9 RCTs that included 674 adults and 781 children. In hospitalized adults with SARS-CoV-2, propolis plus usual-care compared to usual-care alone reduced the risk of shock, respiratory failure and kidney injury and duration of hospital admission. Honey was less effective than Guaifenesin for reducing cough severity at 60-minutes in adults with non-specific acute viral RTIs. Compared to coffee, honey plus coffee, and honey alone reduced the severity of post-infectious cough in adults. Honey reduced the duration of cough in children compared to placebo and salbutamol; and the global impact of nocturnal cough after one night compared to usual-care alone and pharmaceutical cough medicines.
CONCLUSION
More studies are needed to robustly assess honeybee's role in SARS-CoV-2 and non-specific viral respiratory infections.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO: CRD42020193847.
PubMed: 34611512
DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2021.100779 -
Cureus Aug 2021Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Many patients with acute exacerbations need intensive care. There are many... (Review)
Review
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Many patients with acute exacerbations need intensive care. There are many cardiovascular risk factors and comorbid conditions linked with COPD. Troponin elevation is used for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction. However, it is commonly elevated in patients with COPD. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed and Scopus were searched for relevant articles. A total of 383 papers were identified. Out of the 383 papers, only 30 papers remained for final synthesis after removing duplicates, screening for relevant articles, and assessing eligibility criteria. After the quality appraisal, 11 papers were chosen for inclusion in this study. COPD is characterized by obstruction and inflammation of the airways. It is caused mainly by smoking, by causing harmful changes in the structure of the airways. It usually presents with dyspnea, cough, and/or production of sputum. Troponins are regulatory proteins found in the myocardium and skeletal muscles. The cause of its elevation in COPD and acute exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) remains unclear. However, several reasons and factors have been suggested. The most intriguing fact is that high troponin in COPD, especially in exacerbations, has been linked in many articles to a higher risk of death. Furthermore, it could serve as a tool for better assessment and management of COPD patients. We found that troponin predicts death and poor outcomes in COPD and AECOPD. The exact mechanism of its elevations is not clear. We believe it can be a valuable tool for clinicians in better managing COPD and assessing the severity of the exacerbations.
PubMed: 34603857
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.17451 -
International Journal of Microbiology 2021Currently, a novel coronavirus found in 2019 known as SARS-CoV-2 is the etiological agent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Various parameters including clinical manifestations... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Currently, a novel coronavirus found in 2019 known as SARS-CoV-2 is the etiological agent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Various parameters including clinical manifestations and molecular evaluation can affect the accuracy of diagnosis. This review aims to discuss the various clinical symptoms and molecular evaluation results in COVID-19 patients, to point out the importance of onset symptoms, type, and timing of the sampling, besides the methods that are used for detection of SARS-CoV-2.
METHODS
A systematic literature review of current articles in the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline.
RESULTS
Of the 12946 patients evaluated in this investigation, 7643 were confirmed to be COVID-19 positive by molecular techniques, particularly the RT-PCR/qPCR combined technique (qRT-PCR). In most of the studies, all of the enrolled cases had 100% positive results for molecular evaluation. Among the COVID-19 patients who were identified as such by positive PCR results, most of them showed fever or cough as the primary clinical signs. Less common symptoms observed in clinically confirmed cases were hemoptysis, bloody sputum, mental disorders, and nasal congestion. The most common clinical samples for PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients were obtained from throat, oropharyngeal, and nasopharyngeal swabs, while tears and conjunctival secretions seem to be the least common clinical samples for COVID-19 diagnosis among studies. Also, different conserved SARS-CoV-2 gene sequences could be targeted for qRT-PCR detection. The suggested molecular assay being used by most laboratories for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 is qRT-PCR.
CONCLUSION
There is a worldwide concern on the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of well-managed global control. Hence, it is crucial to update the molecular diagnostics protocols for handling the situation. This is possible by understanding the available advances in assays for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Good sampling procedure and using samples with enough viral loads, also considering the onset symptoms, may reduce the qRT-PCR false-negative results in symptomatic COVID-19 patients. Selection of the most efficient primer-probe for target genes and samples containing enough viral loads to search for the existence of SARS-CoV-2 helps detecting the virus on time using qRT-PCR.
PubMed: 34545287
DOI: 10.1155/2021/5528786 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Nicotinic Agonists; Smoking Cessation; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 34519354
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub6 -
Immunotherapy Oct 2021We aimed to quantify the effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) on the prognosis of COVID-19. A meta-analysis was conducted and the hospitalization, severe... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We aimed to quantify the effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) on the prognosis of COVID-19. A meta-analysis was conducted and the hospitalization, severe disease and mortality rates were assessed. Thirteen studies comprising of 4614 cancer patients with COVID-19 were included. When compared with cancer patients without prior ICI exposure, patients with prior ICI treatment exhibited a higher rate of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 2.0, 95% CI 1.19-3.38, p = 0.01). However, the OR of severe disease and mortality in ICI exposed cases was similar to non-ICI exposed patients (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.69-3.51, p = 0.29; OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.85-1.48, p = 0.42, respectively). It is uncertain whether prior exposure to ICIs increases the risk of severe disease and death, however the observed OR suggest a higher rate of hospitalization.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Prognosis; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34431319
DOI: 10.2217/imt-2021-0007 -
Pediatric Pulmonology Oct 2021The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) among adolescents is increasing worldwide. E-cigarettes are marketed as a safe alternative to other tobacco products. The...
BACKGROUND
The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) among adolescents is increasing worldwide. E-cigarettes are marketed as a safe alternative to other tobacco products. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate whether e-cigarette use in children and adolescents is associated with coughing.
METHOD
Studies were identified through systematic searches of Excerpta Medica Database, Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, British Nursing Index, OVID Emcare, Health Management Information Consortium, PsycINFO, and Allied and Complementary Medicine. The Grey Literature was also searched. Selected studies either contained only children and adolescents as study participants or if adults were included, the data for adolescents and children must be presented separately.
RESULTS
Seven studies were selected from 104. Three studies compared e-cigarette users with nonusers; two studies found a significant association between coughing and e-cigarette use in adolescence. Two studies investigated whether adolescents attributed their symptoms to their e-cigarette use. One study reported that coughing was the most likely negative symptom reported by adolescents on initiation of e-cigarette use; the other study found that adolescents, on initiation of e-cigarette use, reported coughing. Two studies looked at the cases of children and adolescents who had presented to the hospital after e-cigarette use and found coughing was a common presenting symptom.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review shows that adolescent use of e-cigarettes is associated with increased coughing and e-cigarette users are more likely to report coughing compared to non-users.
Topics: Adolescent; Adolescent Behavior; Adult; Child; Cognition; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Tobacco Products; Vaping
PubMed: 34407315
DOI: 10.1002/ppul.25619 -
Medicine Jul 2021This review aims to evaluate the supportive effects of frequently used traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This review aims to evaluate the supportive effects of frequently used traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
Five databases were searched through July 7, 2020. Randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of TCM for use in the treatment of COVID-19 were included. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and modified Jadad score were used for the evaluation of the methodological quality of the included studies. Weighted mean difference, odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for pooling out results. Data were extracted for conducting a meta-analysis using STATA version 12.0.
RESULTS
Eight studies with a total of 750 patients were included in this meta-analysis. All included trial groups involved treatment with TCM and Western medicine, while the control groups were treated only with Western medicine. The intervention therapy significantly improved the overall effective rate (n = 346, OR = 2.5, 95% CIs = 1.46-4.29), fever symptom disappearance rate (n = 436; OR = 3.6; 95% CIs = 2.13-6.08), fatigue symptom disappearance rate (n = 436; OR = 3.04; 95% CIs = 1.76-5.26), cough symptom disappearance rate (n = 436; OR = 2.91; 95% CIs = 1.36-6.19), and sputum production reduction (n = 436; OR = 5.51; 95% CIs = 1.94-15.64). Based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessment, 6 studies received a score of 4, and 1 study achieved a score of 5. One study was assessed using the modified Jadad score, achieving a score of 6.
CONCLUSIONS
The integration of TCM with Western medicine has significantly improved the treatment for COVID-19 patients compared to Western medicine treatment alone. Combined therapy using TCM and Western medicine revealed the potential adjunctive role of TCM in treating COVID-19. However, high-quality clinical studies are still required to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of COVID-19.
Topics: Drug Therapy, Combination; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34397691
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026641