Search

Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurological condition that typically shows up with aging. It is characterized by generalized slowness of movement, resting tremor or stiffness, and bradykinesia. PD patients' brains mostly exhibit an increase in inflammatory mediators and microglial response. Nevertheless, a variety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDS) offered neuroprotection in animal models and preclinical trials. Aim: The current systematic review and meta-analysis were designed to try to resolve the debate over the association of NSAID use with the development of PD because the results of several studies were somehow contradictory. Methods: An intense search was performed on Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for articles relating the incidence of PD to the use of NSAIDs. Statistical analysis of the included studies was carried out using Review Manager version 5.4.1 by random effect model. The outcome was identified as the development of PD in patients who were on NSAIDs, ibuprofen only, aspirin only, and non-aspirin NSAIDs. This was analyzed using pooled analysis of odds ratio (OR) at a significance level of ≤0.05 and a confidence level of 95%. A statistically significant decreased risk of PD was observed in patients taking NSAIDs, Ibuprofen, and non-aspirin NSAIDs. Results: The ORs of PD occurrence in patients who took NSAIDs, Ibuprofen, and non-aspirin NSAIDs were 0.88 [95% CI (0.8-0.97), p = 0.01], 0.73 [95% CI (0.53-1), p = 0.05] and 0.85 [95% CI (0.75-0.97), p = 0.01]. Meanwhile, the risk of PD in patients who took aspirin was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In conclusion, Ibuprofen, non-aspirin NSAIDs, and other types of NSAIDs could be associated with a reduction in PD risk. However, there was no association between aspirin intake and the development of PD., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Badawoud, Ali, Abdallah, El Sabaa, Bahaa, Elmasry, Wahsh, Yasser, Eltantawy, Eldesoqui and Hamouda.)

Background: Neuroinflammation pathways have been associated with the development of major depressive disorders (MDD). The anti-inflammatory characteristics of statins have been demonstrated to have significance in the pathophysiology of depression., Aim: To investigate the mechanistic pathways of high dose atorvastatin in MDD., Patients and Methods: This trial included 60 patients with MDD who met the eligibility requirements. Two groups of patients (n = 30) were recruited by selecting patients from the Psychiatry Department. Group 1 received 20 mg of fluoxetine plus a placebo once daily. Group 2 received fluoxetine and atorvastatin (80 mg) once daily. All patients were assessed by a psychiatrist using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). A HDRS score of ≤7 indicates remission or partial remission [HDRS<17 and>7]. Response was defined as ≥ 50% drop in the HDRS score. The serum concentrations of nucleotide-binding domain, leucine-rich-containing family, pyrin domain-containing-3 (NLRP-3), interleukin-6 (IL-6), adenosine monophosphate activated protein kinase (AMPK), and signal transducer and activator of transcription factor-3 (STAT-3) were measured., Results: The atorvastatin group showed a significant reduction in the levels of all measured markers along with a statistical increase in the levels of AMPK when compared to the fluoxetine group. The atorvastatin group displayed a significant decrease in HDRS when compared to its baseline and the fluoxetine group. The response rate and partial remission were higher in the atorvastatin group than fluoxetine ( p = 0.03, and p = 0.005), respectively., Conclusion: These results imply that atorvastatin at high doses may be a promising adjuvant therapy for MDD patients by altering the signaling pathways for AMPK/NLRP3 and IL-6/STAT-3., Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT05792540., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Aldossary, Ali, Abdallah, Bahaa, Elmasry, Elberri, Kotkata, El Sabaa, Elmorsi, Kamel, Negm, Elberri, Hamouda, AlRasheed, Salahuddin, Yasser and Hamouda.)

Objectives: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the top causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The review aimed to discuss and summarize the current evidence on the effectiveness of adjuvant neuroprotective treatments in terms of their effect on brain injury biomarkers in TBI patients. Methods: To identify relevant studies, four scholarly databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Google Scholar, were systematically searched using predefined search terms. English-language randomized controlled clinical trials reporting changes in brain injury biomarkers, namely, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP), ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal esterase L1 (UCHL 1 ) and/or S100 beta (S100 ß), were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Results: A total of eleven studies with eight different therapeutic options were investigated; of them, tetracyclines, metformin, and memantine were discovered to be promising choices that could improve neurological outcomes in TBI patients. The most utilized serum biomarkers were NSE and S100 ß followed by GFAP, while none of the included studies quantified UCHL 1 . The heterogeneity in injury severity categories and measurement timing may affect the overall evaluation of the clinical efficacy of potential therapies. Therefore, unified measurement protocols are highly warranted to inform clinical decisions. Conclusion: Few therapeutic options showed promising results as an adjuvant to standard care in patients with TBI. Several considerations for future work must be directed towards standardizing monitoring biomarkers. Investigating the pharmacotherapy effectiveness using a multimodal biomarker panel is needed. Finally, employing stratified randomization in future clinical trials concerning potential confounders, including age, trauma severity levels, and type, is crucial to inform clinical decisions. Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/dis], identifier [CRD42022316327]., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Mansour, Elnaem, Abdelaziz, Barakat, Dehele, Elrggal and Abdallah.)

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is common with obesity. Metformin is a first-line therapy for this condition. However, it has only a minor impact on weight loss in some patients. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of combining montelukast therapy with metformin in obese diabetic patients. Methods: One hundred obese diabetic adult patients were recruited and randomized into two equal groups. Group 1 received placebo plus metformin 2 g/d, and Group 2 received 2 g/d metformin plus 10 mg/d montelukast. Demographic, anthropometric measurements (e.g., body weight, body mass index [BMI], and visceral adiposity index), lipid profile, diabetes control measures (fasting blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance [HOMA-IR]), adiponectin, and inflammatory markers (e.g., TNF-α, IL-6, and leukotriene B4) were assessed and reported for each group at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment. Results: Both interventions significantly reduced all the measured parameters, except for adiponectin and HDL-C, levels of which increased compared to baseline data ( p < 0.001). The montelukast group significantly improved in all parameters compared to the placebo group (ANCOVA test p < 0.001). The percentage changes in BMI, HbA1c, HOMA-IR, and inflammatory markers were 5%, 9%, 41%, and 5%-30%, respectively, in the placebo group compared to 8%, 16%, 58%, and 50%-70%, respectively, in the montelukast group. Conclusion: Montelukast adjuvant therapy was superior to metformin-only therapy in diabetes control and weight loss, most likely due to its increased insulin sensitivity and anti-inflammatory properties. The combination was tolerable and safe throughout the study duration. Clinical Trial Registration : [Clinicaltrial.gov], identifier [NCT04075110]., Competing Interests: Author EE-K was employed by Certara UK Limited (Simcyp Division). The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 El-Khateeb, El-Berri, Mosalam, Nooh, Abdelsattar, Alghamdi, Alrubia and Abdallah.)