12 research outputs found

    Biological Screening of <i>Glycyrrhiza glabra</i> L. from Different Origins for Antidiabetic and Anticancer Activity

    No full text
    Background: Geographical variation may affect the phytochemistry as well as the biological activities of Glycyrrhiza glabra (licorice) root. Herein, a series of biological activities were performed to evaluate the impact of geographical origin on the biological potential of eight different licorice samples. Methodology: Cell culture studies were performed for cytotoxicity (MCF7, HCT116, HepG2, and MRC5), glucose uptake assay (HepG2), and glutathione peroxidase activity (HepG2), whereas α-amylase inhibition activity was tested for antidiabetic potential. Results: The Indian sample was observed to be more cytotoxic against MCF7 (22%) and HCT116 (43%) with an IC50 value of 56.10 (±2.38) μg/mL against the MCF7 cell line. The glucose uptake was seen with a mean value of 96 (±2.82) and a range of 92–101%. For glutathione peroxidase activity (GPx), the Syrian (0.31 ± 0.11) and Pakistani samples (0.21 ± 0.08) revealed a significant activity, whereas the Palestinian (70 ± 0.09) and Indian samples (68±0.06) effectively inhibited the α-amylase activity, with the lowest IC50 value (67.11 ± 0.97) μg/mL for the Palestinian sample. The statistical models of PCA (principal component analysis) and K-mean cluster analysis were performed to correlate the geographical origin, extract yield, and biological activities for the eight licorice samples of different origins. Conclusion: The licorice samples exhibited significant cytotoxic, GPx, and α-amylase inhibitory activity. The samples with higher extract yield showed more potential in these biological activities

    A comparison of three thromboprophylaxis regimens in critically ill COVID-19 patients: An analysis of real-world data

    No full text
    Introduction: Thrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients. Methodology: This retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24–48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms. Results: A total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94–2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88–1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88–2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83–2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23–2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79–5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26–6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73–8.76), respectively. Conclusion: Among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen. Copyright © 2022 Alrashed, Cahusac, Mohzari, Bamogaddam, Alfaifi, Mathew, Alrumayyan, Alqahtani, Alshammari, AlNekhilan, Binrokan, Alamri, Alshahrani, Alshahrani, Alanazi, Alhassan, Alsaeed, Almutairi, Albujaidy, AlJuaid, Almalki, Ahmed, Alajami, Aljishi, Alsheef, Alajlan, Almutairi, Alsirhani, Alotaibi, Aljaber, Bahammam, Aldandan, Almulhim, Abraham and Alamer.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]
    corecore