RESUMO
CONTEXT: Sepsis refers to a usually lethal medical condition that results from an extreme, uncontrolled, and multifaceted immune system response to infection. Ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe; Zingiberaceae) is 1 of the most popular spice. It is widely used as a traditional herb and as medicine in the treatment of some inflammatory conditions, such as vomiting, pain, cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases, because of its varied medical characteristics, including anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antimicrobial, and antitumor effects. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the potential roles of ginger and its elements in sepsis. DATA SOURCES: This systematic review article was conducted and reported by following the guideline of the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Electronic databases, including Web of Sciences, Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest, were searched using related key words up to January 2023. DATA EXTRACTION: Among 141 found articles, 48 eligible articles were included and reviewed for their details. Data were extracted, including the first author's name, year of publication, name of origin country, study design, number and type of subject, dosage and type of intervention, study duration, assay, and main results. DATA ANALYSIS: The data from the included articles showed that ginger and its bioactive elements, such as gingerol (1-300 µg/mL or 1-100 mg/kg for 24 hours to 14 days), shogaol (0.2-100 µg/mL or 10-40 mg/kg body weight for 24 hours to 8 days), gingerdione (1-100 µg/mL for 20-48 hours), and zingerone (2-20 µM for 4 hours to 8 days), can be effective in sepsis via suppressing the gene expression and production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and oxidant agents, downregulating immune response, and protecting against sepsis-induced organ failures in experimental and animal models. CONCLUSION: Ginger has potential therapeutic effects in sepsis. Human clinical trials are recommended. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023373613.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Corona 2 virus (SARS-CoV-2) is known as the causative agent of COVID-19 disease; the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it an epidemic on March 11, 2020. The Joint Guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO including social distancing, the use of face masks, emphasis on hand washing, quarantine, and using diagnosis tests have been used widely, but the value of diagnostic interventions to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. We compared the economic evaluation of different laboratory diagnostic interventions with each other and also with implementing the conservative CDC & WHO guidelines. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, NHSEED, NHS Health Technology assessment (CRD), and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases. Related articles were reviewed from January 2020 to the end of November 2021. RESULTS: Out of 1791 initial studies, 13 articles had the inclusion criteria. According to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, ten studies were of excellent quality, and the remaining two studies were of very good quality. Most studies were cost-effectiveness analysis studies. The entered studies had different time horizons. Diagnostic tests reviewed in the studies included real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, immunoglobulin G (IgG) & Antigen, point of care tests. Although polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing improves the quality of life and survival for patients with infected Covid-19 based on its greater effectiveness compared to standard protection protocols, due to the high cost of this intervention, it has been considered a cost-effective method in some countries. CONCLUSION: Since most studies have been conducted in developed countries, it unquestionably does not make sense to extend these results to low-income and developing countries. Therefore further studies are required in low-income and developing countries to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laboratory-based diagnostic methods (RT-PCR) of covid-19 in variable prevalence of infectious cases.