The Experts below are selected from a list of 66 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Anthony J Afolayan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The effect of Aloe ferox Mill. in the treatment of loperamide-induced constipation in Wistar rats
BMC Gastroenterology, 2010Co-Authors: Olubunmi A Wintola, Taofik O Sunmonu, Anthony J AfolayanAbstract:Background Constipation is the most common gastrointestinal complaint all over the world and it is a risk factor of colorectal cancer. In this study, the efficacy of aqueous leaf extract of Aloe ferox Mill. was studied against loperamide-induced constipation in Wistar rats. Methods Constipation was induced by oral administration of loperamide (3 mg/kg body weight) while the control rats received normal saline. The constipated rats were treated with 50, 100 and 200 mg/kg body weight/day of the extract for 7 days during which the feeding characteristics, body weight, fecal properties and gastrointestinal transit ratio were monitored. Results The extract improved intestinal motility, increased fecal volume and normalized body weight in the constipated rats, which are indications of laxative property of the herb with the 200 mg/kg body weight of the extract showing the best efficacy. Conclusion The effect of the extract compares favourably well with Senokot, a standard laxative drug. These findings have therefore, lent scientific credence to the folkloric use of the herb as a laxative agent by the people of the Eastern Cape of South Africa.
-
Toxicological evaluation of aqueous extract of Aloe ferox Mill. in loperamide-induced constipated rats.
Human & experimental toxicology, 2010Co-Authors: Olubunmi A Wintola, Taofik O Sunmonu, Anthony J AfolayanAbstract:Aloe ferox Mill. is a widely used medicinal plant in South Africa for the treatment of many ailments including constipation. The present study evaluated the toxicological effect of aqueous leaf extract of the herb at 50, 100 and 200 mg/kg body weight for 7 days on the haematological parameters as well as liver and kidney function indices in loperamide-induced constipated rats. The extract did not cause any significant (p > 0.05) effect on the kidney and liver-body weight ratio as well as the kidney function indices including serum levels of creatinine, uric acid, urea, calcium and potassium ions at all the dosages investigated. Whereas the serum levels of total protein, albumin, bilirubin and gamma glutamyl trasferase (GGT) were not affected, the elevated activities of alkaline phosphatase (ALP), alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) in the untreated constipated animals were normalized following treatment with extract. The data obtained with respect to the haematological analysis indicated that the extracts had no significant (p > 0.05) effect on the haematological parameters with the exception of lymphocyte count which was increased in the untreated constipated rats. This was however attenuated after administering the herb. The available evidence in this study suggests that A. ferox may be safe as an oral remedy for constipation. Generally, the effect of the extract compared favourably well with Senokot, a recommended drug for the treatment of constipation.
-
The effect of Aloe ferox Mill. in the treatment of
2010Co-Authors: Taofik O Sunmonu, Anthony J AfolayanAbstract:Background: Constipation is the most common gastrointestinal complaint all over the world and it is a risk factor of colorectal cancer. In this study, the efficacy of aqueous leaf extract of Aloe ferox Mill. was studied against loperamide-induced constipation in Wistar rats. Methods: Constipation was induced by oral administration of loperamide (3 mg/kg body weight) while the control rats received normal saline. The constipated rats were treated with 50, 100 and 200 mg/kg body weight/ day of the extract for 7 days during which the feeding characteristics, body weight, fecal properties and gastrointestinal transit ratio were monitored. Results: The extract improved intestinal motility, increased fecal volume and normalized body weight in the constipated rats, which are indications of laxative property of the herb with the 200 mg/kg body weight of the extract showing the best efficacy. Conclusion: The effect of the extract compares favourably well with Senokot, a standard laxative drug. These findings have therefore, lent scientific credence to the folkloric use of the herb as a laxative agent by the people of the Eastern Cape of South Africa.
Olubunmi A Wintola - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The effect of Aloe ferox Mill. in the treatment of loperamide-induced constipation in Wistar rats
BMC Gastroenterology, 2010Co-Authors: Olubunmi A Wintola, Taofik O Sunmonu, Anthony J AfolayanAbstract:Background Constipation is the most common gastrointestinal complaint all over the world and it is a risk factor of colorectal cancer. In this study, the efficacy of aqueous leaf extract of Aloe ferox Mill. was studied against loperamide-induced constipation in Wistar rats. Methods Constipation was induced by oral administration of loperamide (3 mg/kg body weight) while the control rats received normal saline. The constipated rats were treated with 50, 100 and 200 mg/kg body weight/day of the extract for 7 days during which the feeding characteristics, body weight, fecal properties and gastrointestinal transit ratio were monitored. Results The extract improved intestinal motility, increased fecal volume and normalized body weight in the constipated rats, which are indications of laxative property of the herb with the 200 mg/kg body weight of the extract showing the best efficacy. Conclusion The effect of the extract compares favourably well with Senokot, a standard laxative drug. These findings have therefore, lent scientific credence to the folkloric use of the herb as a laxative agent by the people of the Eastern Cape of South Africa.
-
Toxicological evaluation of aqueous extract of Aloe ferox Mill. in loperamide-induced constipated rats.
Human & experimental toxicology, 2010Co-Authors: Olubunmi A Wintola, Taofik O Sunmonu, Anthony J AfolayanAbstract:Aloe ferox Mill. is a widely used medicinal plant in South Africa for the treatment of many ailments including constipation. The present study evaluated the toxicological effect of aqueous leaf extract of the herb at 50, 100 and 200 mg/kg body weight for 7 days on the haematological parameters as well as liver and kidney function indices in loperamide-induced constipated rats. The extract did not cause any significant (p > 0.05) effect on the kidney and liver-body weight ratio as well as the kidney function indices including serum levels of creatinine, uric acid, urea, calcium and potassium ions at all the dosages investigated. Whereas the serum levels of total protein, albumin, bilirubin and gamma glutamyl trasferase (GGT) were not affected, the elevated activities of alkaline phosphatase (ALP), alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) in the untreated constipated animals were normalized following treatment with extract. The data obtained with respect to the haematological analysis indicated that the extracts had no significant (p > 0.05) effect on the haematological parameters with the exception of lymphocyte count which was increased in the untreated constipated rats. This was however attenuated after administering the herb. The available evidence in this study suggests that A. ferox may be safe as an oral remedy for constipation. Generally, the effect of the extract compared favourably well with Senokot, a recommended drug for the treatment of constipation.
Taofik O Sunmonu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The effect of Aloe ferox Mill. in the treatment of loperamide-induced constipation in Wistar rats
BMC Gastroenterology, 2010Co-Authors: Olubunmi A Wintola, Taofik O Sunmonu, Anthony J AfolayanAbstract:Background Constipation is the most common gastrointestinal complaint all over the world and it is a risk factor of colorectal cancer. In this study, the efficacy of aqueous leaf extract of Aloe ferox Mill. was studied against loperamide-induced constipation in Wistar rats. Methods Constipation was induced by oral administration of loperamide (3 mg/kg body weight) while the control rats received normal saline. The constipated rats were treated with 50, 100 and 200 mg/kg body weight/day of the extract for 7 days during which the feeding characteristics, body weight, fecal properties and gastrointestinal transit ratio were monitored. Results The extract improved intestinal motility, increased fecal volume and normalized body weight in the constipated rats, which are indications of laxative property of the herb with the 200 mg/kg body weight of the extract showing the best efficacy. Conclusion The effect of the extract compares favourably well with Senokot, a standard laxative drug. These findings have therefore, lent scientific credence to the folkloric use of the herb as a laxative agent by the people of the Eastern Cape of South Africa.
-
Toxicological evaluation of aqueous extract of Aloe ferox Mill. in loperamide-induced constipated rats.
Human & experimental toxicology, 2010Co-Authors: Olubunmi A Wintola, Taofik O Sunmonu, Anthony J AfolayanAbstract:Aloe ferox Mill. is a widely used medicinal plant in South Africa for the treatment of many ailments including constipation. The present study evaluated the toxicological effect of aqueous leaf extract of the herb at 50, 100 and 200 mg/kg body weight for 7 days on the haematological parameters as well as liver and kidney function indices in loperamide-induced constipated rats. The extract did not cause any significant (p > 0.05) effect on the kidney and liver-body weight ratio as well as the kidney function indices including serum levels of creatinine, uric acid, urea, calcium and potassium ions at all the dosages investigated. Whereas the serum levels of total protein, albumin, bilirubin and gamma glutamyl trasferase (GGT) were not affected, the elevated activities of alkaline phosphatase (ALP), alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) in the untreated constipated animals were normalized following treatment with extract. The data obtained with respect to the haematological analysis indicated that the extracts had no significant (p > 0.05) effect on the haematological parameters with the exception of lymphocyte count which was increased in the untreated constipated rats. This was however attenuated after administering the herb. The available evidence in this study suggests that A. ferox may be safe as an oral remedy for constipation. Generally, the effect of the extract compared favourably well with Senokot, a recommended drug for the treatment of constipation.
-
The effect of Aloe ferox Mill. in the treatment of
2010Co-Authors: Taofik O Sunmonu, Anthony J AfolayanAbstract:Background: Constipation is the most common gastrointestinal complaint all over the world and it is a risk factor of colorectal cancer. In this study, the efficacy of aqueous leaf extract of Aloe ferox Mill. was studied against loperamide-induced constipation in Wistar rats. Methods: Constipation was induced by oral administration of loperamide (3 mg/kg body weight) while the control rats received normal saline. The constipated rats were treated with 50, 100 and 200 mg/kg body weight/ day of the extract for 7 days during which the feeding characteristics, body weight, fecal properties and gastrointestinal transit ratio were monitored. Results: The extract improved intestinal motility, increased fecal volume and normalized body weight in the constipated rats, which are indications of laxative property of the herb with the 200 mg/kg body weight of the extract showing the best efficacy. Conclusion: The effect of the extract compares favourably well with Senokot, a standard laxative drug. These findings have therefore, lent scientific credence to the folkloric use of the herb as a laxative agent by the people of the Eastern Cape of South Africa.
Jeremy J Pratt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Cochrane Library - Interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015Co-Authors: Phassawan Rungsiprakarn, Malinee Laopaiboon, Ussanee S Sangkomkamhang, Pisake Lumbiganon, Jeremy J PrattAbstract:Background Constipation is a common symptom experienced during pregnancy. It has a range of consequences from reduced quality of life and perception of physical health to haemorrhoids. An understanding of the effectiveness and safety of treatments for constipation in pregnancy is important for the clinician managing pregnant women. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria We considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs, evaluating interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for constipation in pregnancy. Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Trials published in abstract form only (without full text publication) were not eligible for inclusion. We compared one intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) against another intervention, placebo or no treatment. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Main results Four studies were included, but only two studies with a total of 180 women contributed data to this review. It was not clear whether they were RCTs or quasi-RCTs because the sequence generation was unclear. We classified the overall risk of bias of three studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. No meta-analyses were carried out due to insufficient data. There were no cluster-RCTs identified for inclusion. Comparisons were available for stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives, and fibre supplementation versus no intervention. There were no data available for any other comparisons. During the review process we found that studies reported changes in symptoms in different ways. To capture all data available, we added a new primary outcome (improvement in constipation) - this new outcome was not prespecified in our published protocol. Stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives No data were identified for any of this review's prespecified primary outcomes: pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools. Compared to bulk-forming laxatives, pregnant women who received stimulant laxatives (Senokot or Normax) had an improvement in constipation (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence), but also had more abdominal discomfort (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.73; 140 women, one study, low quality of evidence), and a borderline difference in diarrhoea (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). In addition, there was no clear difference in women's satisfaction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). One of the stimulant laxatives, Normax (dioctyl sodium sulphosuccinate and dihydroxy anthraquinone) is no longer used for the treatment of constipation in pregnant women (and the package information advises that it should not be used during pregnancy or breastfeeding). We therefore carried out a non-prespecified sensitivity analysis with the data for Senokot and Normax presented separately. Results for Senokot and Normax were very similar, thus results for the individual drugs largely reflected findings for the combined analysis, although when individual drugs were compared with bulk-forming laxatives there was no longer a clear difference between groups in terms of abdominal discomfort and diarrhoea. No usable data were identified for any of this review's secondary outcomes: quality of life; dehydration; electrolyte imbalance; acute allergic reaction; or asthma. Fibre supplementation versus no intervention Pregnant women who received fibre supplementation had a higher frequency of stools compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) 2.24 times per week, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.52; 40 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). Fibre supplementation was associated with improved stool consistency as defined by trialists (hard stool decreased by 11% to 14%, normal stool increased by 5% to 10%, and loose stool increased by 0% to 6%). No usable data were reported for either the primary outcomes of pain on defecation and improvement in constipation or any of this review's secondary outcomes as listed above. Quality Five outcomes were assessed with the GRADE software: improvement in constipation, frequency of stools, abdominal discomfort, diarrhoea and women's satisfaction. These were assessed to be of moderate quality except for abdominal discomfort which was assessed to be of low quality. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution. There were no data available for evaluation of pain on defecation or consistency of stools. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy, due to limited data (few studies with small sample size and no meta-analyses). Compared with bulk-forming laxatives, stimulant laxatives appear to be more effective in improvement of constipation (moderate quality evidence), but are accompanied by an increase in diarrhoea (moderate quality evidence) and abdominal discomfort (low quality evidence) and no difference in women's satisfaction (moderate quality evidence). Additionally, fibre supplementation may increase frequency of stools compared with no intervention (moderate quality evidence), although these results were of moderate risk of bias. There were no data for a comparison of other types of interventions, such as osmotic laxatives, stool softeners, lubricant laxatives and enemas and suppositories. More RCTs evaluating interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy are needed. These should cover different settings and evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions (including fibre, osmotic, and stimulant laxatives) on improvement in constipation, pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.
Phassawan Rungsiprakarn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Cochrane Library - Interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015Co-Authors: Phassawan Rungsiprakarn, Malinee Laopaiboon, Ussanee S Sangkomkamhang, Pisake Lumbiganon, Jeremy J PrattAbstract:Background Constipation is a common symptom experienced during pregnancy. It has a range of consequences from reduced quality of life and perception of physical health to haemorrhoids. An understanding of the effectiveness and safety of treatments for constipation in pregnancy is important for the clinician managing pregnant women. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria We considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs, evaluating interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for constipation in pregnancy. Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Trials published in abstract form only (without full text publication) were not eligible for inclusion. We compared one intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) against another intervention, placebo or no treatment. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Main results Four studies were included, but only two studies with a total of 180 women contributed data to this review. It was not clear whether they were RCTs or quasi-RCTs because the sequence generation was unclear. We classified the overall risk of bias of three studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. No meta-analyses were carried out due to insufficient data. There were no cluster-RCTs identified for inclusion. Comparisons were available for stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives, and fibre supplementation versus no intervention. There were no data available for any other comparisons. During the review process we found that studies reported changes in symptoms in different ways. To capture all data available, we added a new primary outcome (improvement in constipation) - this new outcome was not prespecified in our published protocol. Stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives No data were identified for any of this review's prespecified primary outcomes: pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools. Compared to bulk-forming laxatives, pregnant women who received stimulant laxatives (Senokot or Normax) had an improvement in constipation (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence), but also had more abdominal discomfort (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.73; 140 women, one study, low quality of evidence), and a borderline difference in diarrhoea (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). In addition, there was no clear difference in women's satisfaction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). One of the stimulant laxatives, Normax (dioctyl sodium sulphosuccinate and dihydroxy anthraquinone) is no longer used for the treatment of constipation in pregnant women (and the package information advises that it should not be used during pregnancy or breastfeeding). We therefore carried out a non-prespecified sensitivity analysis with the data for Senokot and Normax presented separately. Results for Senokot and Normax were very similar, thus results for the individual drugs largely reflected findings for the combined analysis, although when individual drugs were compared with bulk-forming laxatives there was no longer a clear difference between groups in terms of abdominal discomfort and diarrhoea. No usable data were identified for any of this review's secondary outcomes: quality of life; dehydration; electrolyte imbalance; acute allergic reaction; or asthma. Fibre supplementation versus no intervention Pregnant women who received fibre supplementation had a higher frequency of stools compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) 2.24 times per week, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.52; 40 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). Fibre supplementation was associated with improved stool consistency as defined by trialists (hard stool decreased by 11% to 14%, normal stool increased by 5% to 10%, and loose stool increased by 0% to 6%). No usable data were reported for either the primary outcomes of pain on defecation and improvement in constipation or any of this review's secondary outcomes as listed above. Quality Five outcomes were assessed with the GRADE software: improvement in constipation, frequency of stools, abdominal discomfort, diarrhoea and women's satisfaction. These were assessed to be of moderate quality except for abdominal discomfort which was assessed to be of low quality. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution. There were no data available for evaluation of pain on defecation or consistency of stools. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy, due to limited data (few studies with small sample size and no meta-analyses). Compared with bulk-forming laxatives, stimulant laxatives appear to be more effective in improvement of constipation (moderate quality evidence), but are accompanied by an increase in diarrhoea (moderate quality evidence) and abdominal discomfort (low quality evidence) and no difference in women's satisfaction (moderate quality evidence). Additionally, fibre supplementation may increase frequency of stools compared with no intervention (moderate quality evidence), although these results were of moderate risk of bias. There were no data for a comparison of other types of interventions, such as osmotic laxatives, stool softeners, lubricant laxatives and enemas and suppositories. More RCTs evaluating interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy are needed. These should cover different settings and evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions (including fibre, osmotic, and stimulant laxatives) on improvement in constipation, pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.
