scholarly journals Application of Bee Products for Dermatological Problems

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidrun Männle ◽  
Karsten Münstedt

Context: Bee products are frequently suggested as possible treatments for dermatological problems by protagonists of apitherapy, which is a discipline within the field of complementary and alternative medicine. Unfortunately, apitherapists do not support their health claims. This review was to identify potential uses of bee products in the field of dermatology. Evidence Acquisition: Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, case-control studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses on the topics were identified using various search engines. Results: Evidence suggests that bee products may be a reasonable treatment option for wound infections, burns, radiodermatitis, infections with herpes viruses, atopic dermatitis, rosacea, scars, cutaneous warts, acne, psoriasis, facial wrinkles, and intertrigo. Conclusions: There are several applications for bee products in the field of dermatology, for instance treatment of wound infections with honey and herpes infections with propolis.

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (7) ◽  
pp. 370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Musa ◽  
Omyan ◽  
Esmaely ◽  
Shabeeb

Background and objectives: Ionizing radiation (IR) has been of immense benefit to man, especially for medical purposes (diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy). However, the risks of toxicity in healthy normal cells, leading to cellular damage as well as early and late side effects, have been major drawbacks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the radioprotective effect of hesperidin against IR-induced damage. Materials and Methods: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) were applied in reporting this study. A search was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, and www.ClinicalTrials.gov for information about completed or ongoing clinical trials. Results: From our search results, 24 studies involving rats, mice, and cultured human and animal cells were included. An experimental case—control design was used in all studies. The studies showed that the administration of hesperidin reduced oxidative stress and inflammation in all investigated tissues. Furthermore, it increased 30-day and 60-day survival rates and protected against DNA damage. The best radioprotection was obtained when hesperidin was administered before irradiation. Conclusions: The results of the included studies support the antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antiapoptotic abilities of hesperidin as a potential radioprotective agent against IR-induced damage. We recommend future clinical trials for more insights.


2014 ◽  
Vol 143 (7) ◽  
pp. 1417-1426 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. HABER ◽  
Q. AN ◽  
I. M. FOPPA ◽  
D. K. SHAY ◽  
J. M. FERDINANDS ◽  
...  

SUMMARYAs influenza vaccination is now widely recommended, randomized clinical trials are no longer ethical in many populations. Therefore, observational studies on patients seeking medical care for acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs) are a popular option for estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE). We developed a probability model for evaluating and comparing bias and precision of estimates of VE against symptomatic influenza from two commonly used case-control study designs: the test-negative design and the traditional case-control design. We show that when vaccination does not affect the probability of developing non-influenza ARI then VE estimates from test-negative design studies are unbiased even if vaccinees and non-vaccinees have different probabilities of seeking medical care against ARI, as long as the ratio of these probabilities is the same for illnesses resulting from influenza and non-influenza infections. Our numerical results suggest that in general, estimates from the test-negative design have smaller bias compared to estimates from the traditional case-control design as long as the probability of non-influenza ARI is similar among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. We did not find consistent differences between the standard errors of the estimates from the two study designs.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. e26987 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomomitsu Hirota ◽  
Hidehisa Saeki ◽  
Kaori Tomita ◽  
Shota Tanaka ◽  
Kouji Ebe ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (10) ◽  
pp. 942-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Zare ◽  
Jamal Jafari-Nedooshan ◽  
Mohammadali Jafari ◽  
Hossein Neamatzadeh ◽  
Seyed Mojtaba Abolbaghaei ◽  
...  

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: There has been increasing interest in the study of the association between human mutL homolog 1 (hMLH1) gene polymorphisms and risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, results from previous studies are inconclusive. Thus, a meta-analysis was conducted to derive a more precise estimation of the effects of this gene. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Literature databases until January 1, 2018. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the strength of the association. RESULTS: Finally, 38 case-control studies in 32 publications were identified met our inclusion criteria. There were 14 studies with 20668 cases and 19533 controls on hMLH1 −93G>A, 11 studies with 5,786 cases and 8,867 controls on 655A>G and 5 studies with 1409 cases and 1637 controls on 1151T>A polymorphism. The combined results showed that 655A>G and 1151T>A polymorphisms were significantly associated with CRC risk, whereas −93G>A polymorphism was not significantly associated with CRC risk. As for ethnicity, −93G>A and 655A>G polymorphisms were associated with increased risk of CRC among Asians, but not among Caucasians. More interestingly, subgroup analysis indicated that 655A>G might raise CRC risk in PCR-RFLP and HB subgroups. CONCLUSION: Inconsistent with previous meta-analyses, this meta-analysis shows that the hMLH1 655A>G and 1151T>A polymorphisms might be risk factors for CRC. Moreover, the −93G>A polymorphism is associated with the susceptibility of CRC in Asian population.


PLoS Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. e1003727
Author(s):  
Matthew Cairns ◽  
Serign Jawo Ceesay ◽  
Issaka Sagara ◽  
Issaka Zongo ◽  
Hamit Kessely ◽  
...  

Background Seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) has shown high protective efficacy against clinical malaria and severe malaria in a series of clinical trials. We evaluated the effectiveness of SMC treatments against clinical malaria when delivered at scale through national malaria control programmes in 2015 and 2016. Methods and findings Case–control studies were carried out in Mali and The Gambia in 2015, and in Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Nigeria, and The Gambia in 2016. Children aged 3–59 months presenting at selected health facilities with microscopically confirmed clinical malaria were recruited as cases. Two controls per case were recruited concurrently (on or shortly after the day the case was detected) from the neighbourhood in which the case lived. The primary exposure was the time since the most recent course of SMC treatment, determined from SMC recipient cards, caregiver recall, and administrative records. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) associated with receipt of SMC within the previous 28 days, and SMC 29 to 42 days ago, compared with no SMC in the past 42 days. These ORs, which are equivalent to incidence rate ratios, were used to calculate the percentage reduction in clinical malaria incidence in the corresponding time periods. Results from individual countries were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. In total, 2,126 cases and 4,252 controls were included in the analysis. Across the 7 studies, the mean age ranged from 1.7 to 2.4 years and from 2.1 to 2.8 years among controls and cases, respectively; 42.2%–50.9% and 38.9%–46.9% of controls and cases, respectively, were male. In all 7 individual case–control studies, a high degree of personal protection from SMC against clinical malaria was observed, ranging from 73% in Mali in 2016 to 98% in Mali in 2015. The overall OR for SMC within 28 days was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.21; p < 0.001), indicating a protective effectiveness of 88% (95% CI: 79%, 94%). Effectiveness against clinical malaria for SMC 29–42 days ago was 61% (95% CI: 47%, 72%). Similar results were obtained when the analysis was restricted to cases with parasite density in excess of 5,000 parasites per microlitre: Protective effectiveness 90% (95% CI: 79%, 96%; P<0.001), and 59% (95% CI: 34%, 74%; P<0.001) for SMC 0–28 days and 29–42 days ago, respectively. Potential limitations include the possibility of residual confounding due to an association between exposure to malaria and access to SMC, or differences in access to SMC between patients attending a clinic and community controls; however, neighbourhood matching of cases and controls, and covariate adjustment, attempted to control for these aspects, and the observed decline in protection over time, consistent with expected trends, argues against a major bias from these sources. Conclusions SMC administered as part of routine national malaria control activities provided a very high level of personal protection against clinical malaria over 28 days post-treatment, similar to the efficacy observed in clinical trials. The case–control design used in this study can be used at intervals to ensure SMC treatments remain effective.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽  
Nicole Fusco ◽  
Hwanhee Hong ◽  
Tianjing Li ◽  
Joseph K. Canner ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Adverse events (AEs) in randomized clinical trials may be reported in multiple sources. Different methods for reporting adverse events across trials, or across sources for a single trial, may produce inconsistent and confusing information about the adverse events associated with interventions Methods: We sought to compare the methods authors use to decide which AEs to include in a particular source (i.e., “selection criteria”) and to determine how selection criteria could impact the AEs reported. We compared sources (e.g., journal articles, clinical study reports [CSRs]) of trials for two drug-indications: gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression. We identified selection criteria and assessed how criteria affected AE reporting. Results: We identified 21 gabapentin trials and 7 quetiapine trials. All CSRs (6 gabapentin, 2 quetiapine) reported all AEs without applying selection criteria; by comparison, no other source reported all AEs, and 15/68 (22%) gabapentin sources and 19/48 (40%) quetiapine sources reported using selection criteria. Selection criteria greatly affected the number of AEs that would be reported. For example, 67/316 (21%) AEs in one quetiapine trial met the criterion “occurring in ≥2% of participants in any treatment group,” while only 5/316 (2%) AEs met the criterion, “occurring in ≥10% of quetiapine-treated patients and twice as frequent in the quetiapine group as the placebo group.” Conclusions: Selection criteria for reporting AEs vary across trials and across sources for individual trials. If investigators do not pre-specify selection criteria, they might “cherry-pick” AEs based on study results. Even if investigators pre-specify selection criteria, selective reporting of AEs will produce biased meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines. Data about all AEs identified in clinical trials should be publicly available; however, sharing data will not solve all the problems we identified in this study. Keywords: Harms, adverse events, clinical trials, reporting bias, selective outcome reporting, data sharing, trial registration


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document