4 research outputs found
Kolaviron attenuates diclofenac-induced nephrotoxicity in male Wistar rats
No full textThe beneficial effects of kolaviron, a natural biflavonoid from the seeds of Garcinia kola, have been attributed to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities. This study was designed to investigate the renoprotective effect of kolaviron in rat model of diclofenac (DFC)-induced acute renal failure. Thirty-five male Wistar rats were divided into seven groups of five rats each as follows: a control group that received propylene glycol orally and treatment groups that received diclofenac, diclofenac followed by kolaviron at three different doses and kolaviron only. Diclofenac treated rats showed sluggishness, illness and anorexia. Their urine contained appreciable protein, glucose and ketone bodies. Histopathological examination of their kidneys revealed profound acute tubular necrosis. Diclofenac treatment significantly increased levels of plasma creatinine, urea, sodium, chloride, potassium ions, and increased renal tissue activities of superoxide dismutase, catalase, levels of malondialdehyde and hydrogen peroxide. Fractional excretion of sodium and potassium and renal tissue levels of reduced glutathione and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) decreased significantly in DFC treated groups. However, kolaviron administration significantly reduced toxic effect of DFC on PGE2 release, plasma levels of creatinine, urea, glucose, and electrolytes and significantly attenuated renal tubular and oxidative damages. Furthermore, the effects of DFC administration on food consumption, water intake, urine output and urine protein, glucose, ketone bodies and electrolytes, were significantly attenuated in animals treated with kolaviron. The results suggested that kolaviron ameliorated DFC-induced kidney injury in Wistar rats by decreasing renal oxidative damage and restoration of renal PGE2 release back to the basal levels.The accepted manuscript in pdf format is listed with the files at the bottom of this page. The presentation of the authors' names and (or) special characters in the title of the manuscript may differ slightly between what is listed on this page and what is listed in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript; that in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript is what was submitted by the author
Polymorphisms in the PON gene cluster are associated with Alzheimer disease
No full textParaoxonase is an arylesterase enzyme that is expressed in the liver and found in the circulation in association with apoA1 and the high-density lipoprotein, and prevents the accumulation of oxidized lipids in low-density lipoproteins in vitro. Common polymorphisms in genes encoding paraoxonase are established risk factors in a variety of vascular disorders including coronary artery disease and carotid artery stenosis, but their association with Alzheimer disease (AD) is controversial. We tested the association of 29 SNPs in PON1, PON2 and PON3 with AD in 730 Caucasian and 467 African American participants of the MIRAGE Study, an ongoing multi-center family-based genetic epidemiology study of AD. Eight SNPs were associated with AD in the African American families (0.0001 ≤ P ≤0.04) and two SNPs were associated with AD in Caucasian families (0.01 ≤ P ≤ 0.04). Of note, the pattern of association for the PON1 promoter SNP -161[C/T] was the same in both ethnic groups (P = 0.006). Haplotype analysis using sliding windows revealed 11 contiguous SNP combinations spanning the three PON genes with significant global test scores (0.006 ≤ P ≤ 0.04) in the two ethnic groups combined. The most significantly associated haplotype comprised SNPs in the region spanning the -161[C/T] SNP (P = 0.00009). Our results demonstrate association between AD and variants in the PON gene cluster in Caucasians and African Americans. © The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved
Treatment of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children
No full textBACKGROUNDEvidence is urgently needed to support treatment decisions for children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.METHODSWe performed an international observational cohort study of clinical and outcome data regarding suspected MIS-C that had been uploaded by physicians onto a Web-based database. We used inverse-probability weighting and generalized linear models to evaluate intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) as a reference, as compared with IVIG plus glucocorticoids and glucocorticoids alone. There were two primary outcomes: the first was a composite of inotropic support or mechanical ventilation by day 2 or later or death; the second was a reduction in disease severity on an ordinal scale by day 2. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation and the time until a reduction in organ failure and inflammation.RESULTSData were available regarding the course of treatment for 614 children from 32 countries from June 2020 through February 2021; 490 met the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of the 614 children with suspected MIS-C, 246 received primary treatment with IVIG alone, 208 with IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 with glucocorticoids alone; 22 children received other treatment combinations, including biologic agents, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy. Receipt of inotropic or ventilatory support or death occurred in 56 patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids (adjusted odds ratio for the comparison with IVIG alone, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 1.82) and in 17 patients who received glucocorticoids alone (adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.33). The adjusted odds ratios for a reduction in disease severity were similar in the two groups, as compared with IVIG alone (0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone). The time until a reduction in disease severity was similar in the three groups.CONCLUSIONSWe found no evidence that recovery from MIS-C differed after primary treatment with IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, although significant differences may emerge as more data accrue
Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study
No full textBackground: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods: The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings: We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation: Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding: Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health
