METHODS: To identify chemical ingredients in oil from leaves/rhizomes of AC through GC/MS technique for volatile components and their anti-oxidant, inflammatory/diabetic activities.
RESULTS: The 38 and 65 components were found to make up 99.9 and 99.6 %, respectively in total of Eoil composition of AC leaves/rhizomes. Key chemical constituents were eucalyptol (28.7 % in leaves; 25.4 % in rhizomes), camphor (12.8 % in leaves; 4.2 % in rhizomes), and carotol (9.8 % in leaves; 5.6 % in rhizomes) found in oil of AC leaves/rhizomes. Colorimetric assay showed anti-oxidant activities in leaves and rhizomes are IC50=71.01±0.71 μg/mL and IC50=73.83±0.49 μg/mL, respectively in the Eoils. Eoils had high anti-oxidant capabilities in IC50-values of AC-L-Eoil=43.09±0.82&AC-Rh-Eoil=68.11±0.87 in reducing power in μg/mL was found. Albumin test of rhizome oil had IC50-values of 15.19±0.25 μg/mL. Concentrations range of 7.81 μg/mL and 250 μg/mL in the Eoils of AC leaves and rhizome, respectively by α-glucosidase inhibition assay.
CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated that leaf oil was slightly more promising results than rhizome oil of AC extract, which was ultimately showed medicinal potential of secondary metabolites with anti-oxidant, diabetic/inflammatory activities. Further, Eoils of AC have a wide range of pharmacological potential and promising anti-diabetic effects.
METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases until November 2022 for randomized controlled PEP prophylaxis trials. We invited authors to share individual patient data, including PEP risk profile and prophylaxes used. PEP incidence rates for different prophylaxis were calculated. Efficacy was compared using multilevel logistic regression and expressed as relative risk (RR). Subgroup analysis evaluated the role of patient and ERCP-related risk factors in developing PEP.
RESULTS: Data from 11 studies, including 6430 patients, were analyzed. After adjusting for risk factors, rectal NSAIDs (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.88) and peri-procedural high-volume intravenous fluid (IVF) (RR 0.40, 95%CI 0.21-0.79) were effective in reducing PEP incidence, while no benefit was noted with pancreatic duct (PD) stents (RR 1.25, 95%CI 0.91-1.73). In patients receiving rectal NSAIDs (n = 2617), difficult cannulation (RR 1.99, 1.45-2.73), contrast injection into the pancreatic duct (PD) (RR2.37, 1.68-3.32), and prior history of PEP (RR 1.90, 1.06-3.41) were associated with increased PEP risk.
CONCLUSION: This IPDMA confirms that rectal NSAIDs and peri-procedural IVF are effective PEP prophylactic strategies. Further studies focusing on combination therapy or the development of personalized PEP risk calculators are needed to improve prophylactic strategies.