Methods: Male wistar rats were grouped into 4 (n = 6 per group): Control, junk food fed DN induced rats, low dose and high dose groups. DN was induced by oral junk food feeding. They were monitored for blood glucose levels and urine protein content at regular intervals. At the end of the study, the biological and hematological parameters were measured. Pancreatic and kidney viscera were taken to observe histopathological changes.
Results: Both the doses of anethole rich fraction could drastically lower blood glucose levels, Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL), Glycated Serum Protein (GSP), Total Cholesterol (TC), Triglycerides (TG) (P 0.05). Both doses of anethole rich fraction also improved the pathological changes of kidney and pancreatic tissues in DN rats (P 0.05).
Conclusions: Hence it can be hypothesized that the high dose of anethole rich fraction (100 mg/kg) could reach the intervention effect and could ameliorate renal damage in DN rats by improving the renal functions, oxidative stress levels, glycometabolism and pathological changes of pancreas and kidney.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical outcomes between intermediate/ therapeutic anticoagulation and prophylactic anticoagulation. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for outcomes of interest at a 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 5405 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the odds of mortality (pooled OR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.71-1.19) but a statistically significant reduction in the odds of development of thrombotic events (pooled OR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.42-0.72), and significantly increased odds of development of major bleeding (pooled OR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.20-2.72) with the use of intermediate/therapeutic anticoagulation, relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. Subgroup analysis in patients with a severe course of COVID-19 observed a statistically significant reduction in the odds of development of thrombotic events (pooled OR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.45-0.98) but no significant difference in the odds of development of major bleeding events (pooled OR = 1.37; 95% CI 0.74-2.56), with the use of intermediate/therapeutic anticoagulation, relative to prophylactic anticoagulation.
CONCLUSION: There could be net clinical benefits with higher-intensity dosing of anticoagulation relative to prophylactic-dosing of anticoagulation among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.
METHODS: A systematic literature search with no language restriction was performed in electronic databases and preprint repositories to identify eligible studies published up to 29 June 2021. The outcomes of interest were hospital admission and all-cause mortality. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for outcomes of interest with the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies relative to nonuse of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, at 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Our systematic literature search identified nine randomized controlled trials. Three trials had an overall low risk of bias, while four trials had some concerns in the overall risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the odds of mortality (pooled OR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.33-1.47), but a statistically significant reduction in the odds of hospital admission (pooled OR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.21-0.42), with the administration of a neutralizing monoclonal antibody among patients with COVID-19, relative to non-administration of a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, at the current sample size.
CONCLUSION: The reduced risk of hospital admission with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies use suggests that the timing of neutralizing antibodies administration is key in preventing hospital admission and, ultimately, death. Future randomized trials should aim to determine if the clinical outcomes with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies differ based on serostatus.