This study aimed to investigate the practice of apitherapy - using bee products such as honey, pollen, propolis, royal jelly and bee venom to prevent or treat illness and promote healing - among German beekeepers and to evaluate their experiences with these therapies. A questionnaire incorporating two instruments on beekeepers’ physical and mental health and working practice was included in three German beekeeping journals and readers were asked to complete it. The instrument included questions on the use of apitherapy. Simple descriptive methods, bivariate correlation, cross-tabulation and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the data. Altogether 1059 completed questionnaires were received. The beekeepers reported the most effective and favorable therapeutic effects with honey, followed by propolis, pollen and royal jelly. The factors associated with successful experiences were: age, number of hives tended, health consciousness, positive experiences with one product and self-administration of treatment. Beekeepers were asked for which condition they would employ propolis and pollen. They reported that they used propolis most frequently to treat colds, wounds and burns, sore throats, gum disorders and also as a general prophylactic, while pollen was most commonly used as a general prophylactic and, less frequently, in treating prostate diseases. No adverse experiences were reported. The potential benefit of bee products is supported by the positive experiences of a large group of beekeepers who use some of these products to treat a wide range of conditions. The indications and treatments given here may be important in selecting bee products and designing future trials.

Screening and assessment (Chapter 2): screening techniques to identify patients with alcohol problems, and subsequent assessments for clinicians to undertake before providing specific treatments or interventions.• Interventions, treatments, relapse prevention and aftercare (Chapter 3): a range of varying interventions and treatments, including brief interventions, brief e-health interventions, psychosocial interventions, alcohol withdrawal management, pharmacotherapy options, and peer support programs. In the final section of this chapter, relapse prevention, aftercare, and long term follow-up strategies are discussed.• Considerations for specific populations (Chapter 4): the management of alcohol problems and treatment considerations for specific population groups of interest in Australia -genderspecific considerations, adolescents and young people, pregnant and breastfeeding women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, culturally and linguistically diverse groups, sexually diverse and gender diverse populations, older people, and cognitively impaired people.• Understanding comorbidities (Chapter 5): the importance of considering a range of comorbidities when providing treatment for alcohol problems. Polydrug use, comorbid mental disorders, and physical-related comorbidities are discussed.The content of this supplement is based on the various chapters of the full Guidelines for the Treatment of Alcohol Problems, which were based on reviews of the evidence, including well designed meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials, wherever possible. Where this evidence was not available, recommendations were based on the best available research or clinical experience. Each recommendation in the guidelines is accompanied with a level of evidence based on National Health and Medical Research Council evidence recommendations (Box 2), 21 with "A" representing the most evidence and "GPP" (good practice point) indicating a recommendation with no evidence.For more on the Guidelines for the Treatment of Alcohol Problems, visit https://alcoh oltre atmen tguid elines.com.au/. Acknowledgements:The Guidelines for the Treatment of Alcohol Problems project was funded by the Australian Government, under the Drug and Alcohol Program. We would like to express our gratitude to members of the Guidelines Steering Committee for providing invaluable guidance and advice on this project. We thank Daniel Winter, Sophia Little, Brennan Geiger and James Pham for providing research and administrative support, and Joshua Watt for providing clinical support, across sections of this supplement. Finally, we thank Donna Ah Chee, Kylie Lee, Teagan Weatherall, Craig Holloway and Martin Nean for conversations and work which informed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples section in the guidelines and Chapter 4 of this supplement.Competing interests: Paul Haber has been funded by the Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics at the University of Sydney to undertake clinical trials of cannabinoid treatment for alcohol withdra...

Finally, the concept of islet cell or stem cell transplantation is most attractive, as it offers many perspectives: islet cell availability could become unlimited and islet or stem cells my be transplanted without life-long immunosuppressive treatment of the recipient, just to mention two of them.

No abstract

Studies suggest that honey has less influence on serum glucose concentrations than monosaccharides and disaccharides. This study aimed to confirm these findings conclusively by comparing directly the effects of honey, an identical sugar solution, and oral glucose tolerance (OGT) test solution on serum glucose, insulin, and C-peptide values in healthy subjects. Twelve healthy men with a mean age of 27.7 years, a mean body mass index of 23.2 kg/m(2), and no history of metabolic disorders participated in the study. Subjects underwent OGT testing to establish values and exclude preclinical diabetes. One week later they were randomly assigned to basswood honey or a glucose-fructose solution (honey-comparable glucose-fructose solution). The following week subjects were given the other solution. All solutions contained 75 g of glucose. Serum glucose was measured before drinking test solutions and every 10 minutes for 120 minutes afterwards. C-peptide and insulin were measured at 60 and 120 minutes. Serum insulin and C-peptide values at 60 minutes were significantly lower for honey. The mean serum glucose concentration was also lower for honey, but direct comparisons at the various times showed no statistically significant differences between solutions. However, the area under the concentration-time profile for glucose response was lower for the honey than the honey-comparable glucose-fructose solution. Honey had less effect on serum glucose, C-peptide, and insulin values than the honey-comparable glucose-fructose solution. Further study to elucidate underlying mechanisms may be worthwhile, as may investigation of the implications of these findings for diabetic patients.