A forced titration study of the antioxidant and immunomodulatory effects of Ambrotose AO supplement

Background Oxidative stress plays a role in acute and chronic inflammatory disease and antioxidant supplementation has demonstrated beneficial effects in the treatment of these conditions. This study was designed to determine the optimal dose of an antioxidant supplement in healthy volunteers to inform a Phase 3 clinical trial. Methods The study was designed as a combined Phase 1 and 2 open label, forced titration dose response study in healthy volunteers (n = 21) to determine both acute safety and efficacy. Participants received a dietary supplement in a forced titration over five weeks commencing with a no treatment baseline through 1, 2, 4 and 8 capsules. The primary outcome measurement was ex vivo changes in serum oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC). The secondary outcome measures were undertaken as an exploratory investigation of immune function. Results A significant increase in antioxidant activity (serum ORAC) was observed between baseline (no capsules) and the highest dose of 8 capsules per day (p = 0.040) representing a change of 36.6%. A quadratic function for dose levels was fitted in order to estimate a dose response curve for estimating the optimal dose. The quadratic component of the curve was significant (p = 0.047), with predicted serum ORAC scores increasing from the zero dose to a maximum at a predicted dose of 4.7 capsules per day and decreasing for higher doses. Among the secondary outcome measures, a significant dose effect was observed on phagocytosis of granulocytes, and a significant increase was also observed on Cox 2 expression. Conclusion This study suggests that Ambrotose AO® capsules appear to be safe and most effective at a dosage of 4 capsules/day. It is important that this study is not over interpreted; it aimed to find an optimal dose to assess the dietary supplement using a more rigorous clinical trial design. The study achieved this aim and demonstrated that the dietary supplement has the potential to increase antioxidant activity. The most significant limitation of this study was that it was open label Phase 1/Phase 2 trial and is subject to potential bias that is reduced with the use of randomization and blinding. To confirm the benefits of this dietary supplement these effects now need to be demonstrated in a Phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Timeliness and Clinical Impact of Hospital-Initiated Medication Reviews

Background: Medication-related problems often occur in the immediate post-discharge period. To reduce medication misadventure the Commonwealth Government funds home medicines reviews (HMRs). HMRs are initiated when general practitioners refer consenting patients to their community pharmacists, who then engage accredited pharmacists to review patients' medicines in their homes. Aim: To determine if hospital-initiated medication reviews (HIMRs) can be implemented in a more timely manner than HMRs; and to assess the impact of a bespoke referral form with comorbidity-specific questions on the quality of reports. Method: Eligible medical inpatients at risk of medication misadventure were referred by the hospital liaison pharmacist to participating accredited pharmacists post-discharge from hospital. Social, demographic and laboratory data were collected from medical records and during interviews with consenting patients. Issues raised in the HIMR reports were categorised: intervention/action, information given or recommendation, and assigned a rank of clinical significance. Results: HIMRs were conducted within 11.6 6.6 days postdischarge. 36 HIMR reports were evaluated and 1442 issues identified - information given (n = 1204), recommendations made (n = 88) and actions taken (n = 150). The majority of issues raised (89%) had a minor clinical impact. The bespoke referral form prompted approximately half of the issues raised. Conclusion: HIMRs can be facilitated in a more timely manner than post-discharge HMRs. There was an associated positive clinical impact of issues raised in the HIMR reports.

The threat to scientific integrity in environmental and occupational medicine

Over the last century, environmental and occupational medicine has played a significant role in the protection and improvement of public health. However, scientific integrity in this field has been increasingly threatened by pressure from some industries and governments. For example, it has been reported that the tobacco industry manipulated eminent scientists to legitimise their industrial positions, irresponsibly distorted risk and deliberately subverted scientific processes, and influenced many organisations in receipt of tobacco funding. Many environmental whistleblowers were sued and encountered numerous personal attacks. In some countries, scientific findings have been suppressed and distorted, and scientific advisory committees manipulated for political purposes by government agencies. How to respond to these threats is an important challenge for environmental and occupational medicine professionals and their societies. The authors recommend that professional organisations adopt a code of ethics that requires openness from public health professionals; that they not undertake research or use data where they do not have freedom to publish their results if these data have public health implications; that they disclose all possible conflicts; that the veracity of their research results should not be compromised; and that their research independence be protected through professional and legal support. The authors furthermore recommend that research funding for public health not be directly from the industry to the researcher. An independent, intermediate funding scheme should be established to ensure that there is no pressure to analyse data and publish results in bad faith. Such a funding system should also provide equal competition for funds and selection of the best proposals according to standard scientific criteria.