Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20433711›Full record

Trial reportBMC complementary and alternative medicine2010

A forced titration study of the antioxidant and immunomodulatory effects of Ambrotose AO supplement.

Stephen P Myers, Lesley Stevenson, Phillip A Cheras, Joan O'Connor, Lyndon Brooks, Margaret Rolfe, Paul Conellan, Carol Morris

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IClinical Trial, Phase II
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Stephen P MyersAustralian Centre for Complementary Medicine Education and Research, A Joint Venture of the University of Queensland and Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia. smyers@scu.edu.au
Lesley Stevenson
Phillip A Cheras
Joan O'Connor
Lyndon Brooks
Margaret Rolfe
Paul Conellan
Carol Morris

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOxidative stress plays a role in acute and chronic inflammatory disease and antioxidant supplementation has demonstrated beneficial effects in the treatment of these conditions. This study was designed to determine the optimal dose of an antioxidant supplement in healthy volunteers to inform a Phase 3 clinical trial.

methodsThe study was designed as a combined Phase 1 and 2 open label, forced titration dose response study in healthy volunteers (n = 21) to determine both acute safety and efficacy. Participants received a dietary supplement in a forced titration over five weeks commencing with a no treatment baseline through 1, 2, 4 and 8 capsules. The primary outcome measurement was ex vivo changes in serum oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC). The secondary outcome measures were undertaken as an exploratory investigation of immune function.

resultsA significant increase in antioxidant activity (serum ORAC) was observed between baseline (no capsules) and the highest dose of 8 capsules per day (p = 0.040) representing a change of 36.6%. A quadratic function for dose levels was fitted in order to estimate a dose response curve for estimating the optimal dose. The quadratic component of the curve was significant (p = 0.047), with predicted serum ORAC scores increasing from the zero dose to a maximum at a predicted dose of 4.7 capsules per day and decreasing for higher doses. Among the secondary outcome measures, a significant dose effect was observed on phagocytosis of granulocytes, and a significant increase was also observed on Cox 2 expression.

conclusionThis study suggests that Ambrotose AO(R) capsules appear to be safe and most effective at a dosage of 4 capsules/day. It is important that this study is not over interpreted; it aimed to find an optimal dose to assess the dietary supplement using a more rigorous clinical trial design. The study achieved this aim and demonstrated that the dietary supplement has the potential to increase antioxidant activity. The most significant limitation of this study was that it was open label Phase 1/Phase 2 trial and is subject to potential bias that is reduced with the use of randomization and blinding. To confirm the benefits of this dietary supplement these effects now need to be demonstrated in a Phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT).

trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register: ACTRN12605000258651.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsAdultAntioxidantsCamellia sinensisCyclooxygenase 2Dose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleGranulocytesHumansImmunologic FactorsMaleMiddle AgedOxygenPhagocytosisPlant ExtractsQuercetinAntioxidantsCyclooxygenase 2Immunologic FactorsOxygenPlant ExtractsQuercetinVitamin EVitamins

Identifiers

PMID20433711
PMCPMC2888736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.