| Literature DB >> 34257647 |
Oumarou Goni Hamadama1, Mbah Ntepe Leonel Javeres1, Nyunaï Nyemb1, Medou Mba Fabrice1, Pettang Tomen Manuela Elsa2.
Abstract
Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a major public health problem affecting several countries with predominance in black Africa. Faced with therapeutic failure caused by resistance and supply disruptions, searching for other antiretroviral agents, in particular from natural sources, becomes necessary. Given popular consumption of Azadirachta indica and Senna siamea decoction in the Northern Cameroon region and the traditionally attributed antiretroviral value, information on its efficacy and safety consumption is relevant to confirm its use. A total of 297 participants aged 18-52 and HIV-positive were recruited and divided into 3 groups: one taking only the decoction (group 1), another taking only antiretroviral therapy (ARTs) (group 2), and finally, one taking the decoction and antiretroviral (group 3). During 6 months, all the participants of the concerned groups consumed daily (morning and evening) 250 mL of Azadirachta indica and Senna siamea decoction. CD4+ and CD8+ levels were measured by flow cytometry. Hepatic and renal toxicity and oxidative stress were evaluated spectrophotometrically by measuring ALT, AST, ALP, BUN, CREAT, SOD, CAT, and GSH parameters. We note an increase in the CD4+ level of the three groups with values much more pronounced in the group treated by ARTs + decoction, from 328 ± 106 to 752 ± 140. Group 2 presented not only biological signs of hepatic and renal toxicity but also significant oxidative stress. No signs of toxicity were detected in the other groups. The study concludes that a decoction of Azadirachta indica and Senna siamea stimulates the production of CD4+ and is not toxic. On the contrary, it would reduce the toxicity caused by ARTs intake.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34257647 PMCID: PMC8249164 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5594505
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Toxicol ISSN: 1687-8191
Characteristics of the study population.
| Characteristics | Total population ( |
|---|---|
| Age | |
| Age (years) mean ± SEM | 35.64.22 ± 10.12 |
| 18–29 | 25 (75) |
| 30–45 | 60 (179) |
| +45 | 15 (43) |
|
| |
| Gender % ( | |
| Male | 69.02 (205) |
| Female | 30.98 (92) |
| Sex ratio (male/female) | 2.25 |
N = total number of samples.
Phytochemical screening of each extract of the decoction.
| Chemical groups | Plants extracted (leaves) | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| Phenolic compounds | +++ | +++ |
| Flavonoids | +++ | + |
| Glucosides | − | + |
| Steroids | + | − |
| Triterpenes | ++ | + |
| Saponosides | − | + |
| Coumarins | − | +++ |
| Tannins | + | − |
| Catechin | + | + |
| Alkaloids | +/− | +/− |
−, absence; +/−, traces; +, low presence; ++, abundant; +++, very abundant.
Variation of LT CD4+ and LT CD8+ in different groups.
| Period | Parameters | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 |
| ODD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 0 | CD4+ | 381 ± 12 | 357 ± 13 | 328 ± 11 | 0.4 | 0.973 (0.742–1.104) |
| CD8+ | 1382 ± 49 | 1279 ± 56 | 1373 ± 42 | 0.1 | 0.871 (0.714–1.001) | |
| CD4+/CD8+ | 0.27 ± 0.03 | 0.28 ± 0.02 | 0.24 ± 0.02 | 0.1 | 1.028 (0.804–1.111) | |
|
| ||||||
| After 6 months | CD4+ | 501 ± 24a | 549 ± 22a | 752 ± 14b | 0.01 | 1.634 (0.931–2.042) |
| CD8+ | 1407 ± 47 | 1007 ± 56 | 1026 ± 41 | 0.1 | 1.004 (0.847–1.135) | |
| CD4+/CD8+ | 0.37 ± 0.03a | 0.54 ± 0.0.04b | 0.73 ± 0.04c | 0.02 | 1.719 (1.082–2.109) | |
Group 1, decoction; Group 2, ART; Group 3, ART + decoction. Results are expressed in means ± SEM; a, b, and c indicate the statistical differences of Tukey' posthoc test; statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05, one-way ANOVA of groups 1, 2, and 3).
Variation of biochemical parameters in different groups.
| Time | Parameters | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 0 | ALT (UI/L) | 37 ± 9 | 35 ± 12 | 40 ± 8 | 0.123 |
| AST (UI/L) | 34 ± 8 | 39 ± 9 | 36 ± 7 | 0.280 | |
| ALP (UI/L) | 94 ± 14 | 102 ± 17 | 89 ± 12 | 0.178 | |
| BUN (mmol/L) | 10 ± 3 | 10 ± 4 | 9 ± 3 | 0.523 | |
| Creatinine ( | 77 ± 12 | 74 ± 10 | 80 ± 17 | 0.347 | |
| CAT (U/mg protein) | 0.407 ± 0.103 | 0.367 ± 0.120 | 0.480 ± 0.103 | 0.157 | |
| SOD (U/mg protein) | 10.14 ± 3.20 | 11.96 ± 2.36 | 10.58 ± 3.34 | 0.309 | |
| GSH ( | 16.55 ± 5.13 | 16.57 ± 5.39 | 18.82 ± 5.74 | 0.291 | |
|
| |||||
| After 30 days | ALT (UI/L) | 30 ± 10 | 55 ± 16 | 46 ± 9 | 0.214 |
| AST (UI/L) | 29 ± 5a | 54 ± 14b | 34 ± 6a | 0.04 | |
| ALP (UI/L) | 100 ± 27a | 230 ± 71b | 94 ± 13a | 0.01 | |
| BUN (mmol/L) | 10 ± 2 | 16 ± 5 | 10 ± 4 | 0.127 | |
| Creatinine ( | 82 ± 19 | 110 ± 28 | 71 ± 16 | 0.08 | |
| CAT (U/mg protein) | 0.615 ± 0.106c | 0.247 ± 0.113a | 0.510 ± 0.124b | 0.01 | |
| SOD (U/mg protein) | 11.10 ± 3.07 | 20.96 ± 7.15 | 16.34 ± 4.07 | 0.06 | |
| GSH ( | 36.75 ± 6.24b | 10.57 ± 3.14a | 24.80 ± 5.40b | 0.03 | |
|
| |||||
| After 3 months | ALT (UI/L) | 33 ± 6a | 91 ± 23b | 42 ± 8a | 0.03 |
| AST (UI/L) | 36 ± 10a | 84 ± 27b | 36 ± 4a | 0.01 | |
| ALP (UI/L) | 108 ± 35a | 327 ± 101b | 100 ± 16a | 0.01 | |
| BUN (mmol/L) | 8 ± 3a | 27 ± 9b | 10 ± 4a | 0.04 | |
| Creatinine ( | 79 ± 17 | 114 ± 41 | 76 ± 14 | 0.07 | |
| CAT (U/mg protein) | 0.679 ± 0.121b | 0.252 ± 0.109a | 0.564 ± 0.119b | 0.01 | |
| SOD (U/mg protein) | 15.50 ± 3.43a | 38.76 ± 13.23b | 17.86 ± 4.12a | 0.03 | |
| GSH ( | 34.39 ± 8.40b | 12.80 ± 4.12a | 47.63 ± 10.02b | 0.01 | |
Group 1, decoction; Group 2, ART; Group 3, ART + decoction. AST, aspartate transaminase; ALT, alanine transaminase; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; CAT, catalase; SOD, superoxide dismutase. Results are in means ± SEM; a, b, and c indicate statistical differences of Tukey' posthoc test; statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05, one-way ANOVA of groups 1, 2, and 3).
Figure 1Binomial logistic regression of biochemical parameters as a time function. The model was adjusted for each graph (0, day zero of treatment; 1, after 3 months of treatment). The results are significant if p < 0.05. (a) Odds ratio of the decoction group. (b) Odds ratio of the ARV group. (c) Odds ratio of the ART + decoction group.