4.4 Article

A Phase I Trial of Berberine in Chinese with Ulcerative Colitis

期刊

CANCER PREVENTION RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 117-126

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-19-0258

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIH, NCI [N01CN-2012-00035]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC81421003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Chinese natural product, berberine, has biological properties that support its potential efficacy as a colon cancer prevention agent. Its longstanding use in China to treat gastrointestinal tract and rheumatologic disorders is generally regarded as safe, supporting initial investigations in an at-risk population, such as individuals with ulcerative colitis. However, the safety of berberine in this population is not established. Individuals living in China with biopsy-proven ulcerative colitis, <= grade 2 dysplasia, and with a ulcerative colitis disease activity index (UCDAI) score <= 1 on mesalamine, were randomized 3:1 in a double-blind phase I trial to berberine 900 mg/day or placebo for 3 months, with the primary objective of assessing safety. Blood samples and biopsies of the colorectum, from prespecified locations, were collected prior to and following therapy. Secondary endpoints included changes in UCDAI score, and in tissue and plasma markers of inflammation. Of toxicities at least possibly related, one episode of grade 3 elevation in transaminases and one episode of grade 1 nausea were observed among 12 individuals on berberine, and none were observed among 4 on placebo. The mean plasma berberine concentration was 3.5 nmol/L after berberine treatment, significantly higher than 0.5 nmol/L with placebo. Berberine significantly decreased the Geboes grade in colonic tissue, but had a nonsignificant effect on other tissue or blood biomarkers related to cell growth and inflammation. The combination of berberine and mesalamine is well tolerated in Chinese with ulcerative colitis and may enhance mesalamine's anti-inflammatory effects in colonic tissue.

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

4.4
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