Use of liquid chromatography for assay of flavonoids as key constituents and antibiotics as trace elements in propolis. Investigation into the application of a range of liquid chromatography techniques for the analysis of flavonoids and antibiotics in propolis; and extraction studies of flavonoids in propolis

Propolis is an approved food additive containing flavonoids as a major active constituent. Variability has been found in the composition of propolis in distinctive regions and it was noticed that there are limitations in the analysis of propolis. In this study, the identification of ten flavonoids and residual antibiotics in propolis was investigated by using several liquid chromatography techniques, including reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC), microemulsion LC (MELC) and ultra-performance LC (UPLC). The ten flavonoids that were selected for this research include rutin, myricetin, quercetin, apigenin, kaempferol, pinocembrin, CAPE, chrysin, galangin and acacetin while chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline and doxycycline were selected to examine the residual antibiotics in propolis. For the analysis of the selected flavonoids, routine RP-HPLC method was found to be the best method, while MELC technique was found more efficient for the analysis of the selected antibiotics. Solid phase extraction with HLB sorbent was utilised in the analysis of antibiotics for clean-up of propolis. In method development studies for flavonoids and antibiotics, one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) approach was followed. The final optimised method for the analysis of flavonoids as well as the method. for the analysis of antibiotics was validated using the ICH guidelines, and various aspects, such as the linearity, selectivity, accuracy, recovery, robustness and stability parameters, were examined. Development of efficient conventional method for the extraction of flavonoids from propolis was studied extensively in the present research work using different extraction techniques such as maceration, hot extraction, ultrasound assisted extraction. Among all extraction experiments, ethanolic extraction using ultrasound extraction method was the best efficient approach. This thesis shows that, in general, the performance of O/W MELC is superior to that of conventional HPLC for the determination of residual antibiotics in propolis. UPLC was not suitable for the analysis of flavonoids and antibiotics. The conventional LC was the only technique to separate the ten flavonoids but MELC was able to separate nine of the flavonoids with faster analysis time. This work also showed that MELC uses cheaper solvents. This considerable saving in both cost and time will potentially improve efficiency within quality control.Social Justice Department, Government of Maharashtra, India

Strong Reasons Make Strong Actions: Medical Cannabis and Cancer—A Call for Collective Action

Call it cannabis, not marijuana or weed [...

Health Care Provider Preferences for, and Barriers to, Cannabis Use in Cancer Care

Background: Limited research has been conducted about the perspectives of oncology health care providers (hcps) concerning the use of cannabis in cancer care and their potential role in advising patients. We sought to determine the barriers encountered by hcps with respect to medical cannabis and their preferred practices in this area. Methods: An anonymous survey about cannabis was distributed to oncology hcps at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre in Calgary, Alberta. The 45-question survey measured the opinions of hcps about cannabis use and authorization in oncology. Results: Of 103 oncology hcps who participated in the study, 75% were women. By hcp type, the most commonly reported professional groups were oncology nurse (40%), radiation therapist (9%), and pharmacist (6%). Of respondents, 75% reported providing direct care to cancer patients. More than half (69%) had spoken to a patient about cannabis in the preceding month, and 84% believed that they lacked sufficient knowledge about cannabis to make recommendations. Barriers such as monitoring the patient’s use of cannabis (54%), prescribing an accurate dose (61%) or strain (53%), and having insufficient research (50%) were most commonly reported. More than half of hcps (53%) would be interested in receiving more information or training about the use of cannabis in oncology. Conclusions: The survey indicated that this group of oncology hcps believed that they lacked sufficient knowledge about cannabis to make recommendations to patients. In addition to that lack of knowledge, a number of notable barriers were reported, and more than half the hcps indicated interest in learning more about cannabis in the future