Search

OBJECTIVE: Malvidin is a natural, biologically active polyphenol found in several fruits. It exhibits several therapeutic benefits; however, limited studies are available on its effects on neurodegenerative clinical conditions, including Parkinson's disease. The study aimed to investigate the therapeutic properties of malvidin on rotenone-triggered Parkinson's disease in an animal model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine the effects of malvidin, rotenone (1.5 mg/kg) was injected subcutaneously into Wistar rats for 21 days, followed by a dose of malvidin (200 and 100 mg/kg). Behavioral tests were performed on the experimental animals before sacrifice. On the 22nd day of the experiment, biochemical tests were performed, including superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione (GSH), malondialdehyde (MDA), and catalase (CAT). The activity of neurotransmitters and their metabolites, including acetylcholine (ACh), acetylcholinesterase (AChE), dopamine (DA), norepinephrine (NE), serotonin (5-HT), 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (DOPAC), homovanillic acid (HVA), and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) along with neuroinflammatory markers including interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß), tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-a), and nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf-2) were estimated. Moreover, the level of the apoptotic marker, caspase-3, was also estimated. In addition, molecular docking was performed. RESULTS: The administration of rotenone resulted in oxidative stress, cholinergic imbalances, dopaminergic alternations, and increased expression of inflammatory compounds. The docking analysis revealed that malvidin displayed a favorable binding affinity for AChE, showcasing a binding energy of -9.329 Kcal/mol. CONCLUSIONS: The investigation concludes that malvidin exhibits neuroprotective effects due to its curative effects against inflammation and oxidative stress. These findings suggest that malvidin possesses therapeutic potential against rotenone-triggered behavioral, oxidative, and inflammatory abnormalities in rodents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Vaccinations are highly essential to control infectious diseases and epidemics. Presently, the entire world faces a challenging crisis of "Severe Acute Respiratory Diseases Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), also known as the COVID-19 pandemic". The impact of vaccines at national levels to reduce the SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths are unclear, and people have concerns about the effectiveness of vaccines in real-world settings. This study's objective was to examine the effect of the "Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca" vaccines to prevent SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths in Saudi Arabia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we collected data on SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths from the date of the first case of SARS-CoV-2 in Saudi Arabia March 2, 2020, to the date of launching the vaccination campaign on December 14, 2020; and from December 15, 2020, to September 8, 2021. We recorded the World Health Organization data and Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia to evaluate the impact of the "Pfizer/BioNTech, (BNT162b2 mRNA) and Oxford/AstraZeneca (AZD1222)" vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths before and after the vaccination campaign in Saudi Arabia. RESULTS: Saudi Arabia launched the "Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca" vaccination campaign against SARS-CoV-2 on December 14, 2020. In Saudi Arabia, before the vaccination campaign from March 2, 2020, to December 14, 2020, the mean daily SARS-CoV-2 cases were 1235.60, daily deaths were 22.70, that significantly reduced (p=0.0001) compared to the period after the vaccination campaign from December 15, 2020, to September 8, 2021, in which the daily cases fell to 692.08, and daily deaths fell to 9.48 (p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In Saudi Arabia, Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccinations significantly reduced the number of SARSCoV-2 cases and deaths after the vaccination compared to the period before the vaccination campaign at country levels. The study findings demonstrate that vaccination and adherence to nonpharmaceutical intervention can better control the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to examine the effect of implementing a clinical practice guidelines-based management protocol on the outcome of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: We carried out a pre-post guideline implementation study using previously collected data in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). All patients older than 12 years with severe TBI, defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or less, from March 1999 to January 2001 (control group) and from February 2001 to December 2006 (protocol group) were identified and included in this study. Patients in the protocol group were managed using a clinical practice guidelines-based management protocol, derived from the guidelines published by the Brain Trauma Foundation. Primary outcome was hospital mortality, whereas the secondary outcome was ICU mortality. To assess whether the ICU protocol might have led to an increase in the number of surviving patients with severe disability, we examined the association of the protocol use and the need for tracheostomies, mechanical ventilation duration, and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) among survivors. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 434 patients met the inclusion criteria. After adjustment for several prognostic factors, the use of protocol was independently associated with a significant reduction in hospital and ICU mortality (odds ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.86; and odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.96, respectively). The use of the protocol was not associated with an increase in the need for tracheostomies, mechanical ventilation duration, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS. CONCLUSION: The protocol implementation was associated with a reduction in hospital and ICU mortality. This improvement was not associated with an increase in the frequency of tracheostomies and in ICU or hospital LOS, suggesting that the improved survival was not associated with the increased number of surviving patients with severe disability and that the functional status might have also improved. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]