25 research outputs found

    Copper Chaperone for Cu/Zn Superoxide Dismutase is a sensitive biomarker of mild copper deficiency induced by moderately high intakes of zinc

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Small increases in zinc (Zn) consumption above recommended amounts have been shown to reduce copper (Cu) status in experimental animals and humans. Recently, we have reported that copper chaperone for Cu/Zn superoxide dismutase (CCS) protein level is increased in tissues of overtly Cu-deficient rats and proposed CCS as a novel biomarker of Cu status. METHODS: Weanling male Wistar rats were fed one of four diets normal in Cu and containing normal (30 mg Zn/kg diet) or moderately high (60, 120 or 240 mg Zn/kg diet) amounts of Zn for 5 weeks. To begin to examine the clinical relevance of CCS, we compared the sensitivity of CCS to mild Cu deficiency, induced by moderately high intakes of Zn, with conventional indices of Cu status. RESULTS: Liver and erythrocyte CCS expression was significantly (P < 0.05) increased in rats fed the Zn-60 and/or Zn-120 diet compared to rats fed normal levels of Zn (Zn-30). Erythrocyte CCS expression was the most sensitive measure of reduced Cu status and was able to detect a decrease in Cu nutriture in rats fed only twice the recommended amount of Zn. Liver, erythrocyte and white blood cell CCS expression showed a significant (P < 0.05) inverse correlation with plasma and liver Cu concentrations and caeruloplasmin activity. Unexpectedly, rats fed the highest level of Zn (Zn-240) showed overall better Cu status than rats fed a lower level of elevated Zn (Zn-120). Improved Cu status in these rats correlated with increased duodenal mRNA expression of several Zn-trafficking proteins (i.e. MT-1, ZnT-1, ZnT-2 and ZnT-4). CONCLUSION: Collectively, these data show that CCS is a sensitive measure of Zn-induced mild Cu deficiency and demonstrate a dose-dependent biphasic response for reduced Cu status by moderately high intakes of Zn

    Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in chronic conditions like osteoarthritis and tendinitis. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review. Studies were identified by searching electronic databases, and writing to manufacturers. We identified randomised, double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment, in adults with chronic pain. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain of approximately 50% at two weeks, and secondary outcomes were local and systemic adverse events and adverse event-related withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative harm and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, and the effects of trial quality, validity and size, outcome reported, and condition treated, were examined by sensitivity analyses. Twelve new trials were added to 13 trials from a previous review. Fourteen double blind placebo-controlled trials had information from almost 1,500 patients. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo with relative benefit 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.2), NNT 4.6 (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 5.9). Results were not affected by trial quality, validity or size, outcome reported, or condition treated. Three trials with 764 patients comparing a topical with an oral NSAID found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events (6%), systemic adverse events (3%), or the numbers withdrawing due to an adverse event were the same for topical NSAID and placebo. Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating chronic musculoskeletal conditions for two weeks. Larger and longer trials are necessary to fully elucidate the place of topical NSAIDs in clinical practice

    Topical NSAIDs for acute pain: a meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in acute conditions like sprains and strains, with differences between individual drugs for efficacy. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases and writing to manufacturers. We selected randomised double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment in adults with acute pain, and extracted dichotomous information approximating to a 50% reduction in pain at one week, together with details of adverse events and withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative risk and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, with sensitivity analyses where appropriate to investigate differences between individual drugs and aspects of trial design. RESULTS: Twenty-six double blind placebo controlled trials had information from 2,853 patients for evaluation of efficacy. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo in 19 of the 26 trials, with a pooled relative benefit of 1.6 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 1.7), and NNT of 3.8 (95% confidence interval 3.4 to 4.4) compared with placebo for the outcome of half pain relief at seven days. Results were not affected by outcome reported, or condition treated, but smaller trials yielded a larger estimate of efficacy. Indirect comparisons of individual topical NSAIDs showed that ketoprofen was significantly better than all other topical NSAIDs, while indomethacin was barely distinguished from placebo. Three trials, with 433 patients, compared topical with oral NSAID (two trials compared the same drug, one compared different drugs) and found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events, systemic adverse events, or withdrawals due to an adverse event were rare, and no different between topical NSAID and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating acute painful conditions for one week

    Indirect comparison of interventions using published randomised trials: systematic review of PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: There are no randomised and properly blinded trials directly comparing one PDE-5 inhibitor with another in a normal home setting. Valid indirect comparisons with a common comparator must examine equivalent doses, similar duration, similar populations, with the same outcomes reported in the same way. METHODS: Published randomised, double-blind trials of oral PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction were sought from reference lists in previous reviews and electronic searching. Analyses of efficacy and harm were carried out for each treatment, and results compared where there was a common comparator and consistency of outcome reporting, using equivalent doses. RESULTS: Analysis was limited by differential reporting of outcomes. Sildenafil trials were clinically and geographically more diverse. Tadalafil and vardenafil trials tended to use enriched enrolment. Using all trials, the three interventions were similar for consistently reported efficacy outcomes. Rates of successful intercourse for sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil were 65%, 62%, and 59%, with placebo rates of 23–28%. The rates of improved erections were 76%, 75% and 71%, respectively, with placebo rates of 22–24%, and NNTs of 1.9 or 2.0. Reporting of withdrawals was less consistent, but all-cause withdrawals for sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil were 8% 13% and 20%. All three drugs were well tolerated, with headache being the most commonly reported event at 13–17%. There were few serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: There were differences between trials in outcomes reported, limiting comparisons, and the most useful outcomes were not reported. For common outcomes there was similar efficacy between PDE-5 inhibitors

    Influence of feeding alkaline/heat processed proteins on growth and protein and mineral status of rats

    No full text
    link_to_subscribed_fulltex

    Influence of feeding alkaline/heat treated proteins on growth and protein and mineral status of rats

    No full text
    AbstractConference Theme: Impact of Processing on Food Safet
    corecore