| Literature DB >> 27668002 |
Stefanie I Siebler1, Ursula Gresser2, Barbara M Richartz2.
Abstract
Objective. This study aims to evaluate the effect of daily dietary nutritional supplement on somatic, psychological, and urogenital symptoms in postmenopausal women. Material and Methods. In this study 28 healthy, symptomatic, peri- and postmenopausal women of 47-67 years of age were allocated to use the nutritional supplement JuicePLUS+®. Primary research parameters: Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) was used to assess menopausal symptoms at baseline and after 8 and 16 weeks of treatment. Secondary parameters: proliferation behaviour of vaginal smear was scored at baseline and after treatment. Results. Treatment with the supplement resulted in a reduction of somatic, psychological, and urogenital symptoms. The overall MRS score showed an average improvement of 44.01%. Most benefits were observed for the psychological symptoms irritability (60.55%) and physical and mental exhaustion (49.08%); modest effects were observed for hot flashes (44.86%) and sleeping problems (35.56%). There was a minor improvement in sexual problems; 6 women reported an increased libido. No statistically significant effect was found in vaginal dryness and proliferation behaviour of vaginal mucosa. No adverse effects were observed. Conclusion. Dietary nutritional supplement may constitute an effective alternative therapy to conventional alternative medicine for somatic, psychological, and sexual symptoms.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27668002 PMCID: PMC5030430 DOI: 10.1155/2016/2636542
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Characteristics of the participants according to analysis groups 1 and 2.
| Characteristics | Analysis group 1, | Analysis group 2, |
|---|---|---|
| Mean age (years ± SD) | 54.86 ± 5.18 | 55.54 ± 4.89 |
| Age at menopause (years ± SD ) | 48.76 ± 5.36 | 49.92 ± 2.84 |
| Time since menopause (years ± SD) | 6.76 ± 7.73 | 5.62 ± 4.35 |
| Time since first symptoms (years ± SD) | 2.43 ± 4.52 | 3.08 ± 5.24 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 25.19 | 24.83 |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 126.61 | 124.62 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 78.75 | 77.31 |
| Baseline total MRS (±SD)a | 17.86 ± 6.16 | 17.54 ± 5.39 |
| Baseline somatic symptoms, mean (±SD)a | 6.82 ± 3.06 | 6.92 ± 3.48 |
| Baseline psychologic symptoms, mean (±SD)a | 7.61 ± 3.27 | 7.00 ± 2.77 |
| Baseline urogenital symptoms, mean (±SD)a | 3.43 ± 2.63 | 3.62 ± 2.29 |
Q1, first quartile; Q3, third quartile; SD, standard deviation.
aCalculated using Menopause Rating Scale.
Figure 1Boxplots comparing overall MRS scores at baseline and at visits 2 and 3, analysis group 1, n = 28. This figure reflects the course of the overall MRS score at visits 1, 2, and 3. The box and whisker plots include the median, the mean, the interquartile range (IQR: defining the inner 50% of the data), the 5th and 95th percentile (upper and lower whiskers), and outlier. ⋄, mean.
Figure 2Boxplots comparing MRS subgroups at baseline and at visits 2 and 3, analysis group 1, n = 28. This figure reflects the course of the subgroups of MRS score at visits 1, 2, and 3. The box and whisker plots include the median, the mean, the interquartile range (IQR: defining the inner 50% of the data), the 5th and 95th percentile (upper and lower whiskers), and outlier. ⋄, mean.
MRS subgroups, absolute differences (visit 3 − visit 1), analysis group 1, n = 28.
| Subjects | Median | Mean ± SD | IQR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Difference in psychological symptoms | 28 | −2.00 | −3.43 ± 3.04 | 3.5 |
| Difference in somatic symptoms | 28 | −2.00 | −2.75 ± 3.19 | 3.5 |
| Difference in urogenital symptoms | 28 | −1.00 | −1.68 ± 2.42 | 2.0 |
| Summary of differences | 28 | −7.00 | −7.86 ± 5.45 | 4.5 |
This table reflects the differences in MRS score between the subgroups at visit 3 and baseline.
SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range.
Proliferation behaviour in categories, analysis group 1, n = 28.
| Proliferation behaviour | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proliferation behaviour baseline | Proliferation behaviour visit 3 | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | Total | |
| Frequency | ||||
| 1, 1-2, 2-1a | 6 | 3 | 0 | 9 |
| 66.67 | 33.33 | 0.00 | ||
|
| ||||
| 2, 2-3, 3-2b | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 50.00 | 0.00 | 50.00 | ||
|
| ||||
| 3, 3-4, 4-3, 4c | 0 | 0 | 17 | 17 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | ||
|
| ||||
| Total | 7 | 3 | 18 | 28 |
This table shows the change in proliferation behaviour in categories. There appeared to be no statistically important changes for the proliferation behaviour from baseline to visit 3.
aProliferation behaviours 1, 1-2, and 2-1: parabasal calls, small intermediate cells.
bProliferation behaviours 2, 2-3, and 3-2: small and large intermediate cells.
cProliferation behaviours 3, 3-4, 4-3, and 4: large intermediate cells, superficial cells.
a,b,cSchmitt's proliferation value [21].
Comparing with placebo group and hormone therapy group.
| Menopause Rating Scale | Analysis group 2, | Analysis group | Analysis group |
|---|---|---|---|
| Psychological symptoms | −3.31, | −2.5 | −3.4 |
| Somatic symptoms | −2.46, [−4.27; −0.65] | −2.9 | −5.3 |
| Urogenital symptoms | −1.62, | −0.7 | −2.4 |
| Overall MRS | −7.38, | −6 | −11.1 |
This table shows the differences in mean value in analysis group 2 from our study and in the placebo group and hormone therapy group of Carmignani et al. [22].
CI, confidence interval.