Materials and Methods: Five treatment groups were established as follows: Group 1 (C), which was given distilled water; Group 2 (T0), which was administered with LA (10 mg/kg body weight [BW]); and Groups 3 (T1), 4 (T2), and 5 (T3), which were given LA (10 mg/kg BW) plus graded concentrations of 30, 60, and 120 mg/kg BW of EBN, respectively. Rats were euthanized at week 5 to collect blood for superoxide dismutase (SOD) assay, and uterus for histomorphological study and expression analyses of epidermal growth factor (EGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA).
Results: Results revealed that LA causes destruction of uterine lining cells and necrosis of uterine glands of exposed rats without EBN supplement while the degree of damage decreased among EBN treated groups; T3 showed the highest ameliorating effect against LA toxicity, as well as an increased number of uterine glands. Increased levels of SOD were also achieved in EBN supplemented groups than the controls. Results of immunohistochemistry showed significantly higher expressions of EGF, VEGF, and PCNA levels (p<0.05) in T3 compared to other treatments. EBN maintained upregulation of antioxidant - reactive oxygen species balance.
Conclusion: The findings showed that EBN could ameliorate the detrimental effects of LA toxicity on the uterus possibly by enhancing enzymatic antioxidant (SOD) activity as well as expressions of EGF, VEGF, and PCNA with cell proliferation roles.
METHODS: Four attributes (ie, the scientific proof of effectiveness, the scientific proof of safety, the source of recommendation, and cost) were identified from a systematic review and focus group interviews. They were used to develop a DCE questionnaire. Consumers at community pharmacies in Malaysia were asked to respond to 8 DCE choice sets. A conditional logit model was employed to obtain the relative importance of each attribute and to estimate respondents' WTP for nutraceuticals.
RESULTS: A total of 111 valid responses were analyzed. A negative constant term in the developed model indicated that generally the respondents preferred not to use nutraceuticals before they considered the study attributes. The respondents preferred nutraceuticals with no side effect, clear evidence of effectiveness, and recommendation of a healthcare professional. The respondents were willing to pay $252/month more for nutraceuticals proven with no side effect than for those without proof of safety, and $102/month more for nutraceuticals proven with clear effectiveness than for those without proof of effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS: Consumers weighed relatively high on the availability of safety and effectiveness proofs when they chose nutraceuticals. The study highlights on the crucial need to inform consumers using clinical evidences of nutraceuticals as the information is highly preferred by consumers.