The current study was aimed for screening of preliminary phytochemical constituents, estimation of total phenols, flavonoids and evaluation of antioxidant properties of various extracts of Cayratia auriculata (in vitro). Shade dried powder of Cayratia auriculata was exposed to Soxhlet extraction technique with expanding order of extremity of solvents, for example, hexane >chloroform,> ethyl acetate> methanol. Subjective phytochemical screening was finished by standard methods. Total phenolic content was determined by the Folin-Ciocalteau reagent technique using gallic acid as reference standard. Total flavonoid content was determined by the colorimetric technique, utilizing quercetin as standard. In vitro, antioxidant capacity was assessed by utilizing 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) method. Phytochemical investigation suggested that the existence of different phytochemical constituents like alkaloids, flavonoids, phenolic mixtures and tannins, proteins, sugars, glycosides, steroids, triterpenoids, and saponins in the all extracts of Cayratia auriculata in varying degree. The methanolic extract showed higher total phenolic 383.99±1.11 mg GAE/g dry extract and total flavonoid content was 64.11±8.89)mg QE/g dry extract when contrasted with different extracts. Methanolic extract demonstrated most elevated Antioxidant activity 96.46±1.97µg/ml when contrasted with different extracts. Among the four extracts of studied plant methanol extract presented the potent free radical scavenging effect with its significantly lower IC50 value (80.66 μg/ml) in comparison with ethyl acetate, chloroform and hexane extracts. The discoveries of the current examination reinforce the expected ability of Cayratia auriculata as a decent option for the examination of novel antioxidant agents for treating physiological disorders.
Background: Neuropathic pain has a significant negative impact on the patients’ quality of life. Now a day’s anticonvulsants and antidepressants drugs are often used as first-line drugs for the treatment of neuropathic pain. The present study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin in patients of severe neuropathic pain not controlled by simple analgesics.Methods: A total of 360 patients diagnosed with cases of chronic lumbar radiculopathy based on symptoms, clinical examination, X-ray, and magnetic resonance imagining (MRI) scan of the lumbosacral spine, were randomized into three groups. Group A patients received pregabalin 75 mg, Group B patients received gabapentin 300 mg, and Group C patients received amitriptyline 10 mg, respectively. Pain intensity was measured at the baseline, after 1 month and after 2 months with the Numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). Adverse drug reaction reported by the patient or observed by the clinician during the study was reported using the adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting form.Results: At baseline, the mean±SD of NPRS score in Group A was 8.42±1.48, in Group B and Group C were 8.53±1.94 and 8.33±1.26 respectively with an F-value of 0.843 and p value of 0.584, which was not statistically significant. At 1 month, the mean±SD of NPRS score in Group A was 7.23±1.58, in Group B and Group C were 7.43±2.03 and 7.99±2.10 respectively with F-value of 1.58 and p value of 0.085 which was not statistically significant. At 2 months, the mean±SD of NPRS score in Group A was 4.38±2.72, in Group B and Group C were 4.74±2.86 and 6.32±2.31 respectively with F-value of 5.53 and p value of 0.002 which was statistically significant.Conclusions: Pregabalin has the advantages in terms of the NPRS score over gabapentin and amitriptyline. Gabapentin has fewer reported adverse effects and hence better patient compliance on long term use. Amitriptyline is more cost effective than pregabalin which is an important factor to keep in mind while treating patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.