Rafnkendall4878

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) can activate the extracellular regulated protein kinase (ERK)/cAMP response element binding protein (CREB) cascade revealing an important role in antidepressant effects. Here, we studied the neuroprotective effect of baicalin (BA) in mice with chronic unpredictable mild stress (CUMS)-induced via a BDNF/ERK/CREB signaling pathway. Depression was induced via six weeks of CUMS in male ICR mice, and drug therapy was given simultaneously for the last three weeks. Cognitive dysfunctions were then evaluated via sucrose preference test (SPT), open field test (OFT), Morris water maze test (MWM), tail suspension test (TST), and novelty suppressed feeding test (NSF). Western blot and real-time PCR were then used to detect the relative expression of ERK, CREB, p-ERK, and p-CREB. Integrated optical density (IOD) tests of p-ERK and p-CREB were then evaluated via immunofluorescence. The behavior results showed that the cognitive dysfunctions increased in the CUMS group versus the control (CON) group (p less then 0.01). There were decreases in fluoxetine (FLU) and BA groups (p less then 0.05, p less then 0.01). The protein ratios of p-ERK/ERK, p-CREB/CREB and ERK mRNA, and CREB mRNA expression decreased in the CUMS group (p less then 0.01) and markedly increased in the FLU and BA groups (p less then 0.05, p less then 0.01). The IOD value of the p-ERK and p-CREB in the CUMS group was decreased versus the CON group (p less then 0.01), and these changes were improved via BA and FLU treatment (p less then 0.05, p less then 0.01). This study indicated that BA can improve cognitive functions and has antidepressant effects in mice, which may be associated with activation of the BDNF/ERK/CREB signaling pathway in the hippocampus.Research has established that stress "gets under the skin," impacting neuroendocrine and neuroimmune pathways to influence risk for physical and mental health outcomes. These effects can be particularly significant for early life stress (ELS), or adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). In this review, we explore whether stress gets "into the belly," that is, whether psychosocial stress affects the gut microbiome. We review animal and human research utilizing a variety of stress paradigms (acute laboratory stressors, chronic stress, stressful life events, perceived stress, ELS, in utero stress) and their impacts on the gut microbiota, with a particular focus on ELS. We also review data on dietary interventions to moderate impact of stress on the gut microbiome. Our review suggests strong evidence that acute laboratory stress, chronic stress, and ELS affect the gut microbiota in rodents, and growing evidence that perceived stress and ELS may impact the gut microbiota in humans. Emerging data also suggests, particularly in rodents, that dietary interventions such as omega-3 fatty acids and pre- and pro-biotics may buffer against the effects of stress on the gut microbiome, but more research is needed. In sum, growing evidence suggests that stress impacts not only the neuroendocrine and neuroimmune axes, but also the microbiota-gut-brain-axis, providing a pathway by which stress may get "into the belly" to influence health risk.

We tested the hypothesis that, within the margin of 15% of risk difference, palonosetron is not inferior to ondansetron in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

We conducted a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomized, controlled trial of 212 patients aged 18 to 65 years undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia in two secondary care hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either palonosetron (0.075mg) or ondansetron (8mg) intravenously at induction of anesthesia. Ondansetron (8mg) was also administered 8 and 16hours postoperatively. All anesthetic and surgical procedures were standardized. click here Patients were evaluated for 24hours postoperatively for the occurrence of PONV.

A high incidence of PONV was observed at 2-6hours postoperatively, with a rate of 36.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28.2-46.3) in the palonosetron group, as compared to 43.4% (95% CI 34.4-52.9) in the ondansetron group. The risk difference (95% CI) between palonosetron and ondansetron for PONV was 0 (-10.9 to 10.9) at 0-2hours, -6.6 (-19.4 to 6.5) at 2-6hours, -0.9 (-11.0 to 9.2) at 6-12hours, and -2.8 (-9.6 to 3.6) at 12-24hours. There was no statistically significant difference between the palonosetron and ondansetron groups in the use of rescue medication (dimenhydrinate). There were no adverse events associated with the medications under study.

Palonosetron is not inferior to ondansetron in patients at risk of PONV undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, providing a good option for PONV prophylaxis, as it can be administered in a single dose.

Palonosetron is not inferior to ondansetron in patients at risk of PONV undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, providing a good option for PONV prophylaxis, as it can be administered in a single dose.For centuries, cannabis has been used with many different purposes, including medicinal use, usually bypassing any formal approval process. However, during the last decade, interest in cannabis in medicine has been increasing, and several countries, including the United States and Canada, have produced their own legislation about marihuana and cannabis-based medicines. Because of this, interest in research has been increasing and evidence about its medical effects is becoming necessary. We conducted a review examining the evidence of cannabis in pain. Cannabis had been shown to be useful in acute and chronic pain, however recently, these results have been controverted. Within the different types of chronic pain, it has a weak evidence for neuropathic, rheumatic pain, and headache, modest evidence for multiple sclerosis related pain, and as adjuvant therapy in cancer pain. There is no strong evidence to recommend cannabis in order to decrease opioids in patients with chronic use. Even though cannabis-based medications appear to be mostly safe, mild adverse effects are common; somnolence, sedation, amnesia, euphoric mood, hyperhidrosis, paranoia, and confusion may limit the use of cannabis in clinical practice. Risks have not been systematically analyzed. Special concern arises on how adverse effect might affect vulnerable population such as elderly patients. More research is needed in order to evaluate benefits and risks, as well as the ideal administration route and dosages. As cannabis use increases in several countries, answers to these questions might be coming soon.