Evaluation of the Chemical Profile and Antioxidant Capacity of Green, Brown, and Dark Propolis.

The chemical composition of propolis varies between different types, due to the specific vegetation found near the hives and the climatic and soil conditions worldwide. Green propolis is exclusive to Brazil, produced by bees, with the resin of the plant Baccharis dracunculifolia. Brown propolis is a specific variety produced mainly in Northeast Brazil from the plant Hyptis divaricata, also known as "maria miraculosa". Dark propolis is a variety of propolis produced by bees from the resin of the plant known as Jurema Preta (Mimosa hostilis benth). In this study, the aqueous extracts of green, brown, and dark propolis were analyzed for their antioxidant capacity using ABTS, FRAP, and DPPH, and their chemical profiles were determined using paper spray mass spectrometry. Among the three extracts, green propolis had the highest content of total phenolic compounds (2741.71 ± 49.53 mg GAE. 100 g-1), followed by brown propolis (1191.55 ± 36.79 mg GAE. 100 g-1), and dark propolis had the lowest content (901.79 ± 27.80 mg GAE. 100 g-1). The three types of propolis showed high antioxidant capacity, with green showing the highest antioxidant capacity for the three methods used. Using paper spray mass spectrometry, it was possible to suggest the presence of 116 substances, including flavonoids (56), phenylpropanoids (30), terpenes (25), carboxylic acids (1), benzoic acid derivatives (1), fatty acids (1), amino acids (1) and alkaloids (1). The compounds in the green, brown, and dark propolis extracts reinforce the bioactive potential for application in these tree extracts' food and pharmaceutical products.

Administration of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine through feeding tubes: new challenges in times of coronavirus pandemic

The use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as off-label treatments for covid-19 disease is a resort for critical care patients under enteral nutrition (EN). However, the use of solid pharmaceutical forms of these drugs through feeding tubes can pose a challenge to the health care team. Therefore, we performed a review of literature regarding administration of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine through feeding tubes. For this end, a search was performed on PubMed and Lilacs database using key-words and free terms referring to drug administration via feeding tubes, and, specifically chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. Also, a search on Micromedex® database and on the Handbook of Drug Administration via Enteral Feeding Tubes were performed. A total of 1.784 articles were retrieved. However, 4 articles fitted in the inclusion criteria. Two articles exploring the administration of chloroquine via feeding tubes on children with malaria found no difference on clinical results or tolerability when comparing it with oral or intramuscular administration. Other article showed full dispersion of hydroxychloroquine on water after crushing with mortar and pestle. A review found no information regarding the administration of hydroxychloroquine via postpyloric feeding tubes. No information was found on Micromedex® or the consulted Handbook; however, they pointed out the interaction between chloroquine and multivalent ions if coadministered.(AU)