METHODS: This study was designed to investigate the effect of SynacinnTM and its individual biomarkers on drug metabolizing enzymes (CYP1A2, CYP2B6, CYP2C8, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP3A4 (Midazolam), CYP3A4 (Testosteron)), to assess its herb-drug interaction potential through cytochrome P450 inhibition assay. This study was conducted using liquid chromatography- tandem mass spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS) using probe substrates using human liver microsomes against CYP1A2, CYP2B6, CYP2C8, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP3A4 (Midazolam) and CYP3A4 (Testosteron).
RESULTS: Result showed that SynacinnTM at maximum concentration (5000 µg/ml) 100% inhibit CYP1A2, CYP2B6, CYP2C8, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP3A4 (Midazolam) and CYP3A4 (Testosteron). IC50 values determined were 0.23, 0.60, 0.47, 0.78, 1.23, 0.99, 1.01, and 0.91 mg/ml for CYP 1A2, 2B6, 2C8, 2C9, 2C19, 2D6, 3A4 (midazolam) and 3A4 (testosterone), respectively. Meanwhile, all individual biomarkers showed no, less or moderate inhibitory effect towards all the tested CYP450 except for curcumin that showed inhibition of CYP2C8 (91%), CYP2C9 (81%) and CYP2C19 (72%) at 10µM.
CONCLUSION: Curcumin was found to be an active constituent that might contribute to the inhibition of SynacinnTM against CYP2C8, CYP2C9 and CYP2C19. It can be suggested that SynacinnTM can be consumed separately from a drug known to be metabolized by all tested CYP450 enzymes.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC) using outpatient population diabetic patients. Demographic data on social and clinical characteristics were collected from participants. Several questionnaires were administered, including the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) to measure depressive symptoms, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) to assess anxiety symptoms, the Big Five Inventory (BFI) to evaluate personality traits, and the WHO Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) to assess QOL. Multivariate binary logistic regression was performed to determine the predictors of poor glycaemic control.
Results: 300 patients with diabetes mellitus were recruited, with the majority (90%) having type 2 diabetes. In this population, the prevalence of poor glycaemic control (HbA1C ≥ 7.0%) was 69%, with a median HbA1C of 7.6% (IQR = 2.7). Longer duration of diabetes mellitus and a greater number of days of missed medications predicted poor glycaemic control, while older age and overall self-perception of QOL protected against poor glycaemic control. No psychological factors were associated with poor glycaemic control.
Conclusion: This study emphasizes the importance of considering the various factors that contribute to poor glycaemic control, such as duration of diabetes, medication adherence, age, and QOL. These findings should be used by clinicians, particularly when planning a multidisciplinary approach to the management of diabetes.
RESULTS: Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups.
CONCLUSIONS: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.