MATERIALS AND METHODS: Antinociceptive activity of ethanol pomegranate extract was examined using three models of pain: the writhing test, the hot tail flick test and the plantar test. The ethanolic extract of pomegranate was administered by oral gavages in doses of (100,150 and 200mg/kg, p.o (orally)), for all the tests and compared with aspirin (100mg/kg, p.o.) which was considered as the standard drug. Phytochemical screening and HPLC analysis of the plant species was carried out.
RESULTS: In the writhing test, the index of pain inhibition (IPI) was 37% for ethanolic extract of pomegranate (200mg/kg, p.o.), and 59% for aspirin. In the hot tail flick test, the ethanolic extract of pomegranate (200mg/kg, p.o.), has shown significant analgesia reaching its peak at 60 min maximum possible analgesia (MPA), was 24.1% as compared with aspirin 37.5%. Hyperalgesia was successfully induced by the plantar test and the ethanol extract of pomegranate (100,150,200mg/kg, p.o.), reduced the hyperalgesia in a dose dependent manner comparable to aspirin at (100mg/kg, p.o.). HPLC analysis revealed the presence of gallic acid, ellagic acid and Punicalagins A&B.
CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated that ethanol pomegranate extract has an antinociceptive effect that may be related to the presence of identified phytochemicals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINHAL, CENTRAL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts) reference lists of retrieved articles and relevant websites were searched for randomized controlled trials published in the English language involving adults with chronic pain. Studies were included if one of the intervention arms had received pharmacist-led medication review independently or as part of a multidisciplinary intervention. Risk of bias was assessed for all the included studies.
RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 583 unique articles including 5 randomized controlled trials. Compared with control, meta-analysis showed that participants in the intervention group had: a 0.8-point reduction in pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale at 3 months [95% confidence interval (CI), -1.28 to -0.36] and a 0.7-point reduction (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.20) at 6 months; a 4.84 point (95% CI, -7.38 to -2.29) and -3.82 point (95% CI, -6.49 to -1.14) improvement in physical functioning on a 0- to 68-point function subscale of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index at 3 and 6 months, respectively; and a significant improvement in patient satisfaction equivalent to a "small to moderate effect."
DISCUSSION: Pharmacist-led medication review reduces pain intensity and improves physical functioning and patient satisfaction. However, the clinical significance of these findings remain uncertain due to small effect size and nature of reported data within clinical trials that limits recommendation of wider clinical role of pharmacist in chronic pain management.
OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to determine the clinical effects and safety of D. scandens for musculoskeletal pain treatment compared with standard regimen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
METHODS: International and Thai databases were searched from inception through August 2015. Comparative randomized controlled trials investigating oral D. scandens for musculoskeletal pain were included. Outcomes of interest included level of pain and adverse event. Mean changes of the outcomes from baseline were compared between D. scandens and NSAIDs by calculating mean difference.
RESULTS: From 42 articles identified, 4 studies involving a total of 414 patients were included for efficacy analysis. The effects of oral D. scandens on reducing pain score were no different from those of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at any time points (3, 7, 14 days and overall). The overall pain reduction in the D. scandens group was not inferior to treatment with NSAIDs (weighted mean difference 0.06; 95% CI: -0.20, 0.31) without evident of heterogeneity (I(2)=0.00%, p=0.768). When compared, the adverse events (AEs) of D. scandens showed no different relative risk with NSAIDs. The major adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms.
CONCLUSION: D. scandens may be considered as an alternative for musculoskeletal pain reduction.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Faculty of Dentistry, Melaka-Manipal Medical College among 3(rd) and 4(th) year BDS students. A total of 145 dental students, who consented, participate in the study. Students were divided into 14 groups. Nine online sessions followed by nine face-to-face discussions were held. Each session addressed topics related to oral lesions and orofacial pain with pharmacological applications. After each week, students were asked to reflect on blended learning. On completion of 9 weeks, reflections were collected and analyzed.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Qualitative analysis was done using thematic analysis model suggested by Braun and Clarke.
RESULTS: The four main themes were identified, namely, merits of blended learning, skill in writing prescription for oral diseases, dosages of drugs, and identification of strengths and weakness. In general, the participants had a positive feedback regarding blended learning. Students felt more confident in drug selection and prescription writing. They could recollect the doses better after the online and face-to-face sessions. Most interestingly, the students reflected that they are able to identify their strength and weakness after the blended learning sessions.
CONCLUSIONS: Blended learning module was successfully implemented for reinforcing dental pharmacology. The results obtained in this study enable us to plan future comparative studies to know the effectiveness of blended learning in dental pharmacology.