Trends and factors of botanical dietary supplement use among US adults with COPD from 1999 to 2016

Unravelling the Therapeutic Potential of Botanicals Against Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Molecular Insights and Future Perspectives

Background: COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) is a serious health problem worldwide. Present treatments are insufficient and have severe side effects. There is a critical shortage of possible alternative treatments. Medicinal herbs are the most traditional and widely used therapy for treating a wide range of human illnesses around the world. In several countries, different plants are used to treat COPD. Purpose: In this review, we have discussed several known cellular and molecular components implicated in COPD and how plant-derived chemicals might modulate them. Methods: We have discussed how COVID-19 is associated with COPD mortality and severity along with the phytochemical roles of a few plants in the treatment of COPD. In addition, two tables have been included; the first summarizes different plants used for the treatment of COPD, and the second table consists of different kinds of phytochemicals extracted from plants, which are used to inhibit inflammation in the lungs. Conclusion: Various plants have been found to have medicinal properties against COPD. Many plant extracts and components may be used as novel disease-modifying drugs for lung inflammatory diseases.

Chemometric-Guided Approaches for Profiling and Authenticating Botanical Materials

Botanical supplements with broad traditional and medicinal uses represent an area of growing importance for American health management; 25% of U.S. adults use dietary supplements daily and collectively spent over $9. 5 billion in 2019 in herbal and botanical supplements alone. To understand how natural products benefit human health and determine potential safety concerns, careful in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies are required. However, botanicals are innately complex systems, with complicated compositions that defy many standard analytical approaches and fluctuate based upon a plethora of factors, including genetics, growth conditions, and harvesting/processing procedures. Robust studies rely upon accurate identification of the plant material, and botanicals' increasing economic and health importance demand reproducible sourcing, as well as assessment of contamination or adulteration. These quality control needs for botanical products remain a significant problem plaguing researchers in academia as well as the supplement industry, thus posing a risk to consumers and possibly rendering clinical data irreproducible and/or irrelevant. Chemometric approaches that analyze the small molecule composition of materials provide a reliable and high-throughput avenue for botanical authentication. This review emphasizes the need for consistent material and provides insight into the roles of various modern chemometric analyses in evaluating and authenticating botanicals, focusing on advanced methodologies, including targeted and untargeted metabolite analysis, as well as the role of multivariate statistical modeling and machine learning in phytochemical characterization. Furthermore, we will discuss how chemometric approaches can be integrated with orthogonal techniques to provide a more robust approach to authentication, and provide directions for future research.

The trends of complementary alternative medicine use among cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is common among cancer patients and it may reflect the individual and societal beliefs on cancer therapy. Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of CAM use among patients with cancer between 2006 and 2018.

METHODS

We included 2 Cohorts of patients with cancer who were recruited for Cohort 1 between 2006 and 2008 and for Cohort 2 between 2016 and 2018. The study is a cross-sectional study obtaining demographic and clinical information and inquiring about the types of CAM used, the reasons to use them and the perceived benefits. We compared the changes in the patterns of CAM use and other variables between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 1416 patients were included in the study, with 464 patients in Cohort 1 and 952 patients in Cohort 2. Patients in Cohort 2 used less CAM (78.9%) than Cohort 1 (96.8%). Cohort 1 was more likely to use CAM to treat cancer compared to Cohort 2 (84.4% vs. 73%, respectively, p < 0.0001,); while Cohort 2 used CAM for symptom management such as pain control and improving appetite among others. Disclosure of CAM use did not change significantly over time and remains low (31.6% in Cohort 1 and 35.7% for Cohort 2). However, physicians were more likely to express an opposing opinion against CAM use in Cohort 2 compared to Cohort 1 (48.7% vs. 19.1%, p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

There is a significant change in CAM use among cancer patients over the decade, which reflects major societal and cultural changes in this population. Further studies and interventions are needed to improve the disclosure to physicians and to improve other aspects of care to these patients.