4.7 Article

A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, evaluating the sesamin supplement effects on proteolytic enzymes, inflammatory markers, and clinical indices in women with rheumatoid arthritis

期刊

PHYTOTHERAPY RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 9, 页码 2421-2428

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ptr.6433

关键词

inflammatory factors; proteolytic enzymes; rheumatoid arthritis; sesamin

资金

  1. Nutrition and Metabolic Disease Research Center of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences [NRC-9205]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inflammation is one of the main characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis. Based on the antiinflammatory properties of sesame, this study was conducted to evaluate the sesamin supplement effects on serum levels of some proteolytic enzymes, inflammatory biomarkers, and clinical indices in women with rheumatoid arthritis. In this randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 44 patients were randomly divided in intervention and control groups. Patients received 200-mg/day sesamin supplement or placebo in the intervention and control group for 6 weeks. Serum levels of proteolytic enzymes (hyaluronidase, aggrecanase, and matrix metalloproteinases-3) and inflammatory biomarkers (hs-CRP, IL-1 beta, IL-6, TNF-alpha, and cyclooxygenase-2) were measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method at the beginning and end of the study. After intervention, serum levels of hyaluronidase and matrix metalloproteinases-3 decreased significantly in sesamin group. Also, serum levels of hs-CRP, TNF-alpha, and cyclooxygenase-2 in intervention group were significantly decreased in intervention group compared with placebo group. Sesamin supplementation also caused a significant reduction in the number of tender joints and severity of pain in these patients. According to the results, it seems that the sesamin by reducing inflammatory mediators can relieve clinical symptoms and pathological changes that caused by inflammatory impairment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据