-
Mini Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry 2022Ziziphus oenoplia Mill. (Family- Rhamnaceae) an important shrub, often found throughout the hot regions of tropical Asia and northern Australia, is commonly well known...
BACKGROUND
Ziziphus oenoplia Mill. (Family- Rhamnaceae) an important shrub, often found throughout the hot regions of tropical Asia and northern Australia, is commonly well known as Jackal jujube in English. It is a folk herbal medicine used as an abdominal pain killer and antidiarrhoeal agent.
OBJECTIVE
The review aims to provide up-to-date information on the vernacular information, botanical characterization, distribution, ethnopharmacological uses, pharmacological activities, and chemical constituents of Z. oenoplia for possible exploitation of treatment for various diseases and to suggest future investigations.
METHODS
This review was performed by studying online resources relating to Z. oenoplia and diverse resources, including scientific journals, books, and worldwide accepted databases from which information was assembled to accumulate significant information and relevant data in one place.
RESULTS
Investigations on Z. oenoplia have been focused on its pharmacological activities, including its antimicrobial, antidiabetic, antihepatotoxic, antiulcer, antiplasmodial, anticancer, wound healing, anthelmintic, antioxidant, analgesic and antinociceptive, hypolipidemic activity, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory and antidiarrheal activities. Phytochemical studies resulted in the isolation of fatty acids, flavonoids, phenols, pentacyclic triterpenes, hydroxycarboxylic acids, aliphatic hydroxy ether, and cyclopeptide alkaloids.
CONCLUSION
Most of the ethnopharmacological relevance of Z. oenoplia is justified, but more studies are needed. Further investigations are necessary to fully understand the mode of action of the active constituents and to exploit its preventive and therapeutic potentials.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Ethnopharmacology; Medicine, Traditional; Phytochemicals; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Plants, Medicinal; Ziziphus
PubMed: 35135458
DOI: 10.2174/1389557521666210810153311 -
Dermatologic Therapy Apr 2022Sucralfate is an aluminum salt of sucrose octasulfate, generally considered safe in terms of adverse effects. Systemic sucralfate is FDA-approved for the treatment of... (Review)
Review
Sucralfate is an aluminum salt of sucrose octasulfate, generally considered safe in terms of adverse effects. Systemic sucralfate is FDA-approved for the treatment of duodenal ulcers. Since 1991, topical sucralfate has been used in various mucocutaneous conditions, but it is not approved by the FDA yet. In this systematic review, the online databases were searched with appropriate keywords, and the papers were screened by the authors. After screening steps, the relevant articles were selected according to the inclusions and exclusions criteria. Finally, the full texts of 18 articles were included for final evaluations. In conclusion, topical sucralfate has some clinical benefit in several mucocutaneous conditions, including mucocutaneous inflammatory conditions (e.g., post-radiotherapy reaction, diaper dermatitis, keratoconjunctivitis sicca, etc.), mucocutaneous infectious disorders (e.g., peristomal wound reaction/infection); ulcers; burns, and also pain relief.
Topics: Burns; Humans; Sucralfate; Ulcer
PubMed: 35080090
DOI: 10.1111/dth.15334 -
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Apr 2022Globally, access to safe abortion is limited. We aimed to assess the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for abortion, which we define... (Review)
Review
Reducing the harms of unsafe abortion: a systematic review of the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for pregnant persons seeking induced abortion.
BACKGROUND
Globally, access to safe abortion is limited. We aimed to assess the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for abortion, which we define as the provision of information about safe abortion methods to pregnant persons seeking abortion.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, Global Index Medicus and the grey literature up to October 2021. We included studies in which healthcare providers gave pregnant persons information on safe use of abortifacient medications without providing the actual medications. We conducted a descriptive summary of results and a risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. Our primary outcome was the proportion of pregnant persons who used misoprostol to induce abortion rather than other methods among those who received harm reduction counselling.
RESULTS
We included four observational studies with a total of 4002 participants. Most pregnant persons who received harm reduction counselling induced abortion using misoprostol (79%-100%). Serious complication rates were low (0%-1%). Uterine aspiration rates were not always reported but were in the range of 6%-22%. Patient satisfaction with the harm reduction intervention was high (85%-98%) where reported. We rated the risk of bias for all studies as high due to a lack of comparison groups and high lost to follow-up rates.
DISCUSSION
Based on a synthesis of four studies with serious methodological limitations, most recipients of harm reduction counselling use misoprostol for abortion, have low complication rates, and are satisfied with the intervention. More research is needed to determine abortion success outcomes from the harm reduction approach.
FUNDING
This work did not receive any funding.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
We registered the review in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (ID number: CRD42020200849).
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Counseling; Female; Harm Reduction; Humans; Misoprostol; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35017226
DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2021-201389 -
International Journal of Oral and... Aug 2022The aim of this study was to evaluate the revision rate after total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement (TMJR) and determine whether there is a higher risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to evaluate the revision rate after total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement (TMJR) and determine whether there is a higher risk of revision surgery with stock or custom-fitted prostheses (the two most current TMJR prosthesis types). A systematic review was performed, with a search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library in November 2020. Overall, 27 articles were included in this study, describing Biomet and TMJ Concepts prostheses and including postoperative data on complications requiring a return to the operating room. A total of 2247 prostheses were analysed: 1350 stock Biomet prostheses and 897 custom-fitted TMJ Concepts and custom-fitted Biomet prostheses. The global revision rate was 1.19 per 100 prosthesis-years. The most common reason for revision was heterotopic bone formation. Stock prostheses appeared to have a lower risk of revision compared to custom prostheses: rate ratio 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.33-0.81, P-value 0.003). Regarding causes of revision, the only significant difference between the types of devices was a higher rate of heterotopic bone formation for custom-made prostheses (P = 0.001). The results of this study revealed a low revision rate post TMJR revision, with stock devices even less prone to such risk. Nevertheless, these results can be explained by the fact that custom-made prostheses are more likely to be used for cases in which the anatomy is significantly abnormal or there is a history of multiple joint surgeries, which carry a greater risk of complications and heterotopic bone formation.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement; Cimetidine; Humans; Joint Prosthesis; Ossification, Heterotopic; Temporomandibular Joint; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 35012826
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2021.12.012 -
Medicine Dec 2021Data are conflicting on whether proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) diminish the efficacy of clopidogrel. We investigated individual PPIs and adverse cardiovascular events in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Data are conflicting on whether proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) diminish the efficacy of clopidogrel. We investigated individual PPIs and adverse cardiovascular events in postpercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients on dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel.
METHODS
We searched Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception to March 2020 to identify studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel added PPIs versus clopidogrel only in post-PCI patient. We extracted data from 28 studies for major adverse cardiovascular endpoints (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) were pooled separately.
RESULTS
Data were extracted on 131,412 patients from the 28 studies included. Concomitant use of PPI with clopidogrel was associated with increased risk of MACE (RR 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.48; P < .001) and MI (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.25-1.64; P < .001). Random-effects meta-analyses with individual PPIs demonstrated an increased risk of MACE in those taking pantoprazole (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.07-1.61, P = .01) or lansoprazole (RR 1.35; 95% CI 1.19-1.54, P < .0001) compared with patients not on PPIs. Likewise, in adjusted analyses, the pooled HR of adjusted events for MACEs showed that the increased risk of MACEs was similar for 4 classes of PPIs but not for rabeprazole (HR: 1.32; 95% CI 0.69-2.53, P = .40).
CONCLUSION
The post-PCI patients on dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel in the PPI group were associated with higher risk of MACE and MI. Although the results for rabeprazole were not robust, it was the only PPI that did not yield a significantly increased risk of MACE.
Topics: Clopidogrel; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Rabeprazole; Ticlopidine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34967346
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027411 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the most common, life-limiting, genetically inherited disease. It affects multiple organs, particularly the respiratory system. However,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the most common, life-limiting, genetically inherited disease. It affects multiple organs, particularly the respiratory system. However, gastrointestinal problems such as constipation and distal intestinal obstruction syndrome (DIOS) are also important and well-recognised complications in CF. They share similar symptoms e.g. bloating, abdominal pain, but are distinct conditions. Constipation occurs when there is gradual faecal impaction of the colon, but DIOS occurs when there is an accumulation of faeces and sticky mucus, forming a mass in the distal part of the small intestine. The mass may partially block the intestine (incomplete DIOS) or completely block the intestine (complete DIOS). Symptoms of DIOS can affect quality of life and other aspects of CF health, such as airway clearance, exercise, sleep and nutritional status. Treatment of constipation and prevention of complete bowel obstruction are required for gastrointestinal management in CF. However, many different strategies are used in clinical practice and there is a lack of consensus. The importance of this topic was highlighted in a recent research priority setting exercise by the James Lind Alliance.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of laxative agents of differing types for preventing DIOS (complete and incomplete) in children and adults with CF.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of search: 09 September 2021. We also searched online trial registries. Date of last search: 12 October 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled parallel trials comparing laxative therapy for preventing DIOS (including osmotic agents, stimulants, mucolytics and substances with more than one action) at any dose to placebo, no treatment or an alternative laxative therapy, in people of any age with pancreatic sufficient or insufficient CF and any stage of lung disease. Randomised cross-over trials were judged on an individual basis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted outcome data and performed a risk of bias assessment for the included data. We judged the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one cross-over trial (17 participants) with a duration of 12 months, in which participants were randomly allocated to either cisapride (a gastro-prokinetic agent) or placebo for six months each. The trial had an unclear risk of bias for most domains but had a high risk of reporting bias. Radiograph scores revealed no difference in occurrence of DIOS between cisapride and placebo (narrative report, no data provided). There were no adverse effects. Symptom scores were the only secondary outcome within the review that were reported. Total gastrointestinal symptom scores favoured cisapride with a statistically significant mean difference (MD) of -7.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) -14.73 to -0.47). There was no significant difference at six months between cisapride and placebo for abdominal distension, MD -0.90 (95% CI -2.39 to 0.59) or abdominal pain, MD -0.4 (95% CI -2.05 to 1.25). The global symptom scores (whether individuals felt better or worse) were reported in the paper to favour cisapride and be statistically significant (P < 0.05). We assessed the available data to be very low certainty. There was a great deal of missing data from the included trial and the investigators failed to report numerical data for many outcomes. The overall risk of bias of the trial was unclear and it had a high risk for reporting bias. There was also indirectness; the trial drug (cisapride) has since been removed from the market in several countries due to adverse effects, thus it has no current applicability for preventing DIOS. The included trial also had very few participants, which downgraded the certainty a further level for precision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is an absence of evidence for interventions for the prevention of DIOS. As there was only one included trial, we could not perform a meta-analysis of the data. Furthermore, the included trial compared a prokinetic agent (cisapride) that is no longer licensed for use in a number of countries due to the risk of serious cardiac events, a finding that came to light after the trial was conducted. Therefore, the limited findings from the trial are not applicable in current clinical practice. Overall, a great deal more research needs to be undertaken on gastrointestinal complications in CF, as this is a very poorly studied area compared to respiratory complications in CF.
Topics: Cisapride; Constipation; Cystic Fibrosis; Humans; Intestinal Obstruction; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34936085
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012619.pub3 -
PloS One 2021Famotidine is a competitive histamine H2-receptor antagonist most commonly used for gastric acid suppression but thought to have potential efficacy in treating patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Famotidine is a competitive histamine H2-receptor antagonist most commonly used for gastric acid suppression but thought to have potential efficacy in treating patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to summarize the current literature and report clinical outcomes on the use of famotidine for treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
Five databases were searched through February 12, 2021 to identify observational studies that reported on associations of famotidine use with outcomes in COVID-19. Meta-analysis was conducted for composite primary clinical outcome (e.g. rate of death, intubation, or intensive care unit admissions) and death separately, where either aggregate odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was calculated.
RESULTS
Four studies, reporting on 46,435 total patients and 3,110 patients treated with famotidine, were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant association between famotidine use and composite outcomes in patients with COVID-19: HR 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35, 1.16). Across the three studies that reported mortality separated from other endpoints, there was no association between famotidine use during hospitalization and risk of death-HR 0.67 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.73) and OR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.19, 3.34). Heterogeneity ranged from 83.69% to 88.07%.
CONCLUSION
Based on the existing observational studies, famotidine use is not associated with a reduced risk of mortality or combined outcome of mortality, intubation, and/or intensive care services in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19, though heterogeneity was high, and point estimates suggested a possible protective effect for the composite outcome that may not have been observed due to lack of power. Further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may help determine the efficacy and safety of famotidine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Data Management; Famotidine; Female; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Proportional Hazards Models; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34735523
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259514 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Sep 2021To date, guidelines on the impact and value of atropine combined with omeprazole in the treatment of acute gastritis have not been well established or well defined. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To date, guidelines on the impact and value of atropine combined with omeprazole in the treatment of acute gastritis have not been well established or well defined. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of combined atropine and omeprazole therapy for the management of patients with acute gastritis.
METHODS
Through searching the electronic database, the related literature of the combination of atropine with omeprazole in the treatment of acute gastritis were reviewed. A meta-analysis was performed after literature selection according to inclusion criteria. The treatment efficiency and the incidence of adverse reactions were used as the main outcome indicators. The odds ratios (ORs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the two treatment regimens were analyzed.
RESULTS
This study analyzed 11 articles from the literature with a total of 1,053 subjects. The combination of atropine and omeprazole significantly improved the clinical outcomes of patients with acute gastritis compared to patients treated with combined anisodamine and omeprazole (control group). The effective rate of combined atropine and omeprazole treatment was 1.21 times higher than that observed with the control group, and the incidence of adverse reactions was 0.41 times that of the control group. Atropine combined with omeprazole significantly alleviated the clinical symptoms of the patients. The total treatment time was shortened by 0.57 days, duration of abdominal pain was shortened by 2.82 days, duration of diarrhea was reduced by 1.99 days, and the duration of nausea and vomiting was shortened by 2.68 days compared to the control group.
DISCUSSION
The combination of atropine with omeprazole in the treatment of acute gastritis demonstrated a high effective rate with few adverse reactions than. It was effective at alleviating the clinical symptoms associated with acute gastritis. The results of this study provide support for the clinical implementation of combined atropine and omeprazole in the treatment of patients with acute gastritis.
Topics: Atropine; Gastritis; Humans; Omeprazole; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34628879
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-1868 -
Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and... Jan 2022To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the maternal and neonatal outcomes of misoprostol+isosorbide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Misoprostol plus isosorbide mononitrate versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening during labor induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
AIM
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the maternal and neonatal outcomes of misoprostol+isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) versus misoprostol alone (control) in promoting cervical ripening during labor induction.
METHODS
We searched five databases from inception until 05-May-2021. We assessed risk of bias of RCTs, meta-analyzed 23 endpoints, and pooled them as mean difference or risk ratio with 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
Overall, five RCTs met the inclusion criteria, comprising 850 patients (426 and 424 patients were allocated to misoprostol+ISMN and misoprostol group, respectively). Overall, the RCTs had a low risk of bias. Pertaining to maternal delivery-related outcomes, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean interval from drug administration to delivery, rate of vaginal delivery, rate of cesarean section delivery, and rate of need for oxytocin augmentation. Pertaining to maternal drug-related side effects, the rate of maternal headache was significantly higher in disfavor of the misoprostol+ISMN compared with misoprostol alone. However, the rates of maternal nausea, hypotension, flushing, palpitation, dizziness, postpartum hemorrhage, and uterine tachysystole did not differ between both groups. Pertaining to neonatal outcomes, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding rates of NICU admission, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and Apgar score <7 at five minutes.
CONCLUSION
Compared with misoprostol alone, co-administration of misoprostol+ISMN did not correlate with superior maternal delivery-related outcomes. The rate of maternal headache was significantly higher in disfavor of the misoprostol+ISMN group. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding neonatal endpoints.
Topics: Adult; Cervical Ripening; Female; Humans; Isosorbide; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34583026
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102235 -
Nutrients Sep 2021Gastric ulcer disease induced by the consumption of NSAIDs is a major public health problem. The therapy used for its treatment causes adverse effects in the patient....
Gastric ulcer disease induced by the consumption of NSAIDs is a major public health problem. The therapy used for its treatment causes adverse effects in the patient. Propolis is a natural product that has been used for the treatments of different diseases around the world. Nevertheless, there is little information about the activity of propolis in gastric ulcers caused by treatment with NSAIDs. Therefore, this review evaluates and compares the gastroprotective potential of propolis and its function against NSAID-induced gastric ulcers, for which a systematic search was carried out in the PubMed and ScienceDirect databases. The main criteria were articles that report the gastroprotective activity of propolis against the damage produced by NSAIDs in the gastric mucosa. Gastroprotection was related to the antioxidant, antisecretory, and cytoprotective effects, as well as the phenolic compounds present in the chemical composition of propolis. However, most of the studies used different doses of NSAIDs and propolis and evaluated different parameters. Propolis has proven to be a good alternative for the treatment of gastric ulcer disease. However, future studies should be carried out to identify the compounds responsible for these effects and to determine their potential use in people.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Antioxidants; Apitherapy; Gastric Mucosa; Humans; Propolis; Stomach Ulcer; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34579045
DOI: 10.3390/nu13093169