Browsing by Author "Ruzive, Sheena"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Changes in host immune–endocrine relationships during tuberculosis treatment in patients with cured and failed treatment outcomes
    (Frontiers Media, 2017) Kleynhans, Leanie; Ruzive, Sheena; Ehlers, Lizaan; Thiart, Lani; Chegou, Novel N.; Conradie, Magda; Kriel, Magdalena; Kim Stanley; Van Der Spuy, Gian D.; Kidd, Martin; Van Helden; Walzl, Gerhard; Ronacher, Katharina
    A bidirectional communication between the immune and endocrine systems exists and facilitates optimum responses in the host during infections. This is in part achieved through changes in secretion patterns of hypothalamic hormones induced by inflammatory cytokines. The aim of this study was to elucidate the immune–endocrine alterations during tuberculosis (TB) treatment in patients with cured and failed TB treatment outcomes. Blood samples were collected from 27 cured and 10 failed patients and hormone as well as cytokine concentrations quantified at baseline, week 4, and month 6 of TB treatment. Hormone profiles of the two treatment outcome groups were different from each other prior to as well as during TB treatment. Treatment response effects were observed for cortisol, estradiol, T3, T4 ghrelin, leptin, amylin, adiponectin, and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). Trends suggest that T4, amylin, and DHEA concentrations were different between treatment outcomes, although these did not reach statistical significance. Relationships between endocrine and inflammatory markers and the biological pathways involved differed between cured and failed treatment patients. These results highlight the complex interaction between the endocrine and immune system during active TB disease and throughout treatment and suggest that endocrine markers in conjunction with inflammatory markers may be useful in predicting unfavorable treatment outcomes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Identifying gaps using the EPICOT+ framework and exploring the association between funding sources and author conclusions in primary nutrition research addressing non-communicable diseases from Cochrane nutrition reviews : a descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2021-03) Ruzive, Sheena; Naude, Celeste E.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Dept. of Global Health. Epidemiology and Biostatistics.
    ENGLISH SUMMARY : Background: With the rise in non-communicable diseases (NCDs) globally, we aimed to summarise the research gaps and describe the adequacy of the reporting of future research recommendations in Cochrane reviews of nutrition interventions addressing NCDs. We also aimed to explore the influence of funding sources and author- sponsor financial ties on author conclusions in a subset of primary studies included in these reviews. Methods: Two researchers independently screened a Cochrane nutrition reviews database (n=470, July 2015) to identify reviews addressing four NCDs (cardiovascular diseases, cancer, chronic respiratory diseases and diabetes). The “implications for research” section of eligible reviews was analysed using the evidence, population, intervention, comparison, outcome, timeframe, study design and burden of disease (EPICOT+) framework to describe the extent of reporting of research recommendations and to summarise gaps. A purposive sample of English full-text studies included in reviews addressing alternative nutrition supplements were analysed to assess reporting of conflict of interest (COI), funding sources and author-sponsor financial ties, and to explore influences of funding sources and author-sponsor financial ties on author conclusions. Results: Ninety-eight eligible reviews were analysed. The EPICOT+ reporting was as follows: evidence 34/98 (33.7%), population 68/98 (69.4%), intervention 90/98 (91.8%), comparison 26/98 (26.5%), outcomes 78/98 (79.6%), study design 85/98 (86.7%), time frame 52/98 (53.1%), and burden of disease 7/98 (7.1%). Studies requiring better quality, different interventions, and outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were highlighted. Seven reviews addressed alternative nutrition supplements, including 51 eligible primary studies. Conflicts of interest were disclosed in 10/51 (19.2%); funding in 27/51 (51.9%), of which, 11/27 (40.7%) were industry and 16/27 (59.3%) were non-industry sponsors; and author-sponsor financial ties in 9/51 (13.4%), of which 1/9 (11.1%) was industry and 8/9 (88.9%) were non-industry. There was no association between authors making favourable conclusions and having industry sponsors and author-sponsor financial ties (8/12) compared with non-industry sponsors and no author-sponsor financial ties (10/24), (Fisher exact p =0.289). Conclusions: EPICOT+ items were not well reported in most reviews. Future studies of better quality, different interventions, outcomes or populations in LMICs are needed. Authors should disclose all COI, funding sources and author-sponsor financial ties. Possible influences of funding sources and author-sponsor financial ties on author conclusions needs further investigation.