AIM OF THE STUDY: This review is an attempt to assess the anti-inflammatory activity of Polyalthia species by giving critical appraisal and establishing evidences of their traditional uses. Moreover this review will highlight the lead compounds for future drug development that can serve as a potential anti-inflammatory drug with comparative efficacy and minimum side effects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An extensive literature review, focusing the anti-inflammatory potential of Polyalthia species was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Ovid, Scopus and ProQuest, as well as the locally available books, journals and relevant documents. The reference lists of retrieved papers were also searched for additional studies.
RESULTS: The Polyalthia species have shown significant anti-inflammatory activity through various mechanism of action. The most significant anti-inflammatory mechanism includes the inhibition of nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB), prostaglandins (PGs), pro-inflammatory cytokines, inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and reactive oxygen species (ROS). The data suggests that hydroxycleroda-3,13-dien-15,16-olide and 16-oxocleroda-3,13-dien-15-oic acid, quercetin, rutin, spinasterol, α-spinasterol, goniothalamin and (-)-5-hydroxygoniothalamin are the most potent anti-inflammatory compounds from Polyalthia species with comparable IC50 with positive controls.
CONCLUSIONS: Numerous pharmacological studies have supported the use of Polyalthia species against pain, rheumatic fever, haemorrhages and inflammation in traditional medicine. Flavonoids, diterpenoids, sterols and styrylpyrones from genus Polyalthia are the most significant class of compounds with potent anti-inflammatory activity. Secondary metabolites from these classes should be brought into further research to fill the gaps of knowledge in pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, bioavailability, and toxicity in order to convert the pre-clinical results into clinical data for further investigation.
Methods: Thirty-two patients undergoing elective AH were randomised into Group ITM (ITM 0.2 mg + 2.5 mL 0.5% bupivacaine) (n = 16) and Group EB (0.25% bupivacaine bolus + continuous infusion of 0.1% bupivacaine-fentanyl 2 μg/mL) (n = 16).The procedure was performed before induction, and all patients subsequently received standard general anaesthesia. Both groups were provided patient-controlled analgaesia morphine (PCAM) as a backup. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, total morphine consumption, hospital stay duration, early mobilisation time and first PCAM demand time were recorded.
Results: The median VAS score was lower for ITM than for EB after the 1st hour [1.0 (IqR 1.0) versus 3.0 (IqR 3.0), P < 0.001], 8th hour [1.0 (IqR 1.0) versus 2.0 (IqR 1.0), P = 0.018] and 16th hour [1.0 (IqR1.0) versus (1.0 (IqR 1.0), P = 0.006]. The mean VAS score at the 4th hour was also lower for ITM [1.8 (SD 1.2) versus 2.9 (SD 1.4), P = 0.027]. Total morphine consumption [11.3 (SD 6.6) versus 16.5 (SD 4.8) mg, P = 0.016] and early mobilisation time [2.1 (SD 0.3) versus 2.6 (SD 0.9) days, P = 0.025] were also less for ITM. No significant differences were noted for other assessments.
Conclusions: The VAS score was better for ITM than for EB at earlier hours after surgery. However, in terms of acceptable analgaesia (VAS ≤ 3), both techniques were comparable over 24 hours.
METHODS: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.
RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.