| Literature DB >> 32498216 |
Arianna Di Stadio1, Antonio Della Volpe2, Fiammetta M Korsch2, Antonietta De Lucia2, Massimo Ralli3, Francesco Martines4, Giampietro Ricci1.
Abstract
Oral supplements (OS) support the immune system in fighting upper airways infection. This study aimed to analyze the effect of Difensil Immuno (DI) on the recurrence of tonsillitis and fever in children. A multicentric randomized clinical trial was conducted. One-hundred and twenty children with chronic tonsillitis were randomly assigned to group A, B or control. Patients in group A were treated with 10 mL of DI for 90 consecutive days, patients in group B underwent treatment with 15 mL of DI for 45 consecutive days. The following data were collected at baseline (T0), T1 and T2: tonsillitis and fever episodes, tonsillar volume, blood test results. One-way ANOVA was used to analyze within and between variances. Patients in group A and B statistically improved their clinical parameters (episode of tonsillitis and fever, tonsillar volume) when compared to control group both at T1 and T2. However, T1 variances were more consistent in group A than in group B. All patients in the study groups improved their clinical outcomes. No statistically significant variances were observed in blood parameters both at T1 and T2. Our results suggest that children treated with DI had fewer episodes of tonsillitis and fever and a reduction in their tonsillar volume.Entities:
Keywords: immune stimulation; immune system; oral supplement; tonsillitis; treatment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32498216 PMCID: PMC7352765 DOI: 10.3390/nu12061637
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1The image shows details of the Mackenzie classification. We used pictures from our sample to detail the differences between different severities of tonsillar aspect.
Figure 2Variation within each group by comparing T0, T1 and T2 for episodes of tonsillitis, Mackenzie Score and episodes of fever.
Average of clinical data in Group A observed at the three different follow-up visits.
| Group A | T0 | T1 | T2 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 6.5 (SD: 1; | 3.9 (SD: 1; | 2.8 (SD: 0.9; |
|
| 3.6 (SD: 0.5; | 2.5 (SD: 1; | 2.2 (SD: 0.7; |
|
| 4 (SD: 1 | 2 (SD: 0.7; | 1 (SD: 0.6; |
Average of clinical data in Group B observed at the three different follow-up visits.
| Group B | T0 | T1 | T2 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 5,2 (SD: 1.2 | 4 (SD: 1.1; | 3.3 (SD: 0.9; |
|
| 3.5 (SD: 0,6 | 3 (SD: 0.6; | 2.5 (SD: 0.5; |
|
| 4 (SD 0.1 | 2,3 (SD: 0.7; | 1.7 (SD: 0.8; |
Average of clinical data in group B observed at the three different follow-up visits.
| Control Group | T0 | T1 | T2 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.5 (SD: 0.9 | 4.1 (SD: 0.9 | 4.1 (SD: 1; |
|
| 3 (SD: 0.5 | 3 (SD: 0.6 | 3 (SD: 0.6 |
|
| 2.6 (SD: 0.8 | 2.4 (SD: 0.6 | 2.2 (SD: 0.8 |
Figure 3Differences of the analyzed variables between Group A, Group B and Control Group. Patients in Group A obtained a statistically significant improvement from T0 as detailed in the results.