The effect of chronic quercetin supplementation on bone health in postmenopausal women: A double-blind placebo-controlled investigation

Currently, there is limited research investigating the effects of quercetin on bone turnover and density. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the efficacy of 90-day quercetin supplementation on bone turnover, inflammation, body composition, and physical function in postmenopausal women. Thirty-four healthy postmenopausal women (59.2 ± 7.0 yrs, 80.7 ± 15.6 kg, 29.8 ± 6.1 kg⸱m2) participated in the double-blind placebo-controlled investigation. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: 500 mg of Q or 500 mg of fiber (placebo; PLB). Data collected during the pre-and post-supplementation assessments included: bone turnover (osteocalcin, P1NP, CTX), inflammation markers (IL-6, TNF-alpha, CRP), body composition, dominant handgrip strength, and timed up and go test. Independent samples t-tests were used for between-group comparisons of baseline values and the percent change for each dependent variable. A significant difference in percent change for osteocalcin (Q: 20.5±25.7; PLB: 1.3±17.2; p=0.016; d=0.89), P1NP (Q: 28.9 (6.0–57.3); PLB: 4.6 (-7.6 – 8.5); p=0.030; d=0.64), and CTX (Q: 39.0 (-10.0 – 84.6); PLB: -7.74 (-28.9 – 18.5); p=0.023; d=0.91) was found between Q and PLB, with greater increases in Q. Changes in the inflammation markers IL-6 (Q: -17.6±24.1; PLB: 2.90±31.1; p=0.045; d=0.73) and TNF-alpha (Q: -4.9± (-15.3 – [-3.2]); PLB: 1.9 (-7.8 – 4.0); p=0.021; d=0.90) between the two groups were significant. No significant changes were found between groups for CRP, body composition, and physical function (p\u3e0.05). The data suggest that Q may improve bone health status in postmenopausal women through its ability to decrease pro-inflammatory mediators and increase turnover markers

The impact of individual Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (iCST) on cognition, quality of life, caregiver health, and family relationships in dementia: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (CST) is a well-established group psychosocial intervention for people with dementia. There is evidence that homebased programmes of cognitive stimulation delivered by family caregivers may benefit both the person and the caregiver. However, no previous studies have evaluated caregiver-delivered CST. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a home-based, caregiver-led individual Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (iCST) program in (i) improving cognition and quality of life (QoL) for the person with dementia and (ii) mental and physical health (wellbeing) for the caregiver. Methods and Findings: A single-blind, pragmatic randomized trial (RCT) at eight study sites across the UK. The intervention and blinded assessment of outcomes were conducted in participants’ homes. 356 people with mild to moderate dementia and their caregivers recruited from memory services, and community mental health teams. Participants were randomly assigned to iCST (75, 30 minute sessions) or treatment as usual (TAU) control over 25 weeks. iCST sessions consisted of themed activities designed to be mentally stimulating and enjoyable. Caregivers delivering iCST received training and support from an unblind researcher. Primary outcomes were cognition (Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale cognitive [ADAS-Cog]) and self-reported quality of life (QoL) (Quality of Life Alzheimer’s Disease [QoL-AD]) for the person with dementia, and general health status (Short Form-12 [SF-12]) for the caregiver. Secondary outcomes included: quality of the caregiving relationship from the perspectives of the person and of the caregiver (Quality of the Carer Patient Relationships Scale), and health-related QoL (EQ5D) for the caregiver. Intention to treat (ITT) analyses were conducted. At the post-test (26 weeks), there were no differences between the iCST and TAU groups in the outcomes of cognition (MD = -0·55, 95% CI -2·00 to 0·90; p=0·45), and self-reported quality of life (QoL) (MD = -0·02, 95% CI -1·22 to 0·82; p= 0·97) for people with dementia, or caregivers’ general health status (MD=0·13, 95% CI -1·65 to 1·91; p=0·89). However, people with dementia receiving iCST rated the relationship with their caregiver more positively (MD = 1·77, 95% CI 0·26 to 3·28; p=0·02) and iCST improved QoL for caregivers (EQ-5D, MD = 0·06, 95% CI 0·02 to 0·10; p=0·01). Forty percent (72/180) of dyads allocated to iCST completed at least two sessions per week, with 22% (39/180) completing no sessions at all. Study limitations include low adherence to the intervention. Conclusions: There was no evidence that iCST has an effect on cognition or QoL for people with dementia. However, participating in iCST appeared to enhance the quality of the caregiving relationship and caregivers’ QoL

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570