9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effects of Propolis on Infectious Diseases of Medical Relevance

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Simple Summary

          Propolis is a beekeeping product with a complex and highly variable chemical composition. Many beneficial health properties have been reported. In this review, we will be focusing on compiling the studies carried out with propolis on infectious diseases of greater medical relevance. Likewise, the promises and challenges that propolis has to consolidate itself as a complementary therapy for the treatment of these diseases are analyzed.

          Abstract

          Infectious diseases are a significant problem affecting the public health and economic stability of societies all over the world. Treatment is available for most of these diseases; however, many pathogens have developed resistance to drugs, necessitating the development of new therapies with chemical agents, which can have serious side effects and high toxicity. In addition, the severity and aggressiveness of emerging and re-emerging diseases, such as pandemics caused by viral agents, have led to the priority of investigating new therapies to complement the treatment of different infectious diseases. Alternative and complementary medicine is widely used throughout the world due to its low cost and easy access and has been shown to provide a wide repertoire of options for the treatment of various conditions. In this work, we address the relevance of the effects of propolis on the causal pathogens of the main infectious diseases with medical relevance; the existing compiled information shows that propolis has effects on Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, fungi, protozoan parasites and helminths, and viruses; however, challenges remain, such as the assessment of their effects in clinical studies for adequate and safe use.

          Related collections

          Most cited references206

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Global and Multi-National Prevalence of Fungal Diseases—Estimate Precision

          Fungal diseases kill more than 1.5 million and affect over a billion people. However, they are still a neglected topic by public health authorities even though most deaths from fungal diseases are avoidable. Serious fungal infections occur as a consequence of other health problems including asthma, AIDS, cancer, organ transplantation and corticosteroid therapies. Early accurate diagnosis allows prompt antifungal therapy; however this is often delayed or unavailable leading to death, serious chronic illness or blindness. Recent global estimates have found 3,000,000 cases of chronic pulmonary aspergillosis, ~223,100 cases of cryptococcal meningitis complicating HIV/AIDS, ~700,000 cases of invasive candidiasis, ~500,000 cases of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, ~250,000 cases of invasive aspergillosis, ~100,000 cases of disseminated histoplasmosis, over 10,000,000 cases of fungal asthma and ~1,000,000 cases of fungal keratitis occur annually. Since 2013, the Leading International Fungal Education (LIFE) portal has facilitated the estimation of the burden of serious fungal infections country by country for over 5.7 billion people (>80% of the world’s population). These studies have shown differences in the global burden between countries, within regions of the same country and between at risk populations. Here we interrogate the accuracy of these fungal infection burden estimates in the 43 published papers within the LIFE initiative.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections.

            Currently, no single U.S. surveillance system can provide estimates of the burden of all types of health care-associated infections across acute care patient populations. We conducted a prevalence survey in 10 geographically diverse states to determine the prevalence of health care-associated infections in acute care hospitals and generate updated estimates of the national burden of such infections. We defined health care-associated infections with the use of National Healthcare Safety Network criteria. One-day surveys of randomly selected inpatients were performed in participating hospitals. Hospital personnel collected demographic and limited clinical data. Trained data collectors reviewed medical records retrospectively to identify health care-associated infections active at the time of the survey. Survey data and 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample data, stratified according to patient age and length of hospital stay, were used to estimate the total numbers of health care-associated infections and of inpatients with such infections in U.S. acute care hospitals in 2011. Surveys were conducted in 183 hospitals. Of 11,282 patients, 452 had 1 or more health care-associated infections (4.0%; 95% confidence interval, 3.7 to 4.4). Of 504 such infections, the most common types were pneumonia (21.8%), surgical-site infections (21.8%), and gastrointestinal infections (17.1%). Clostridium difficile was the most commonly reported pathogen (causing 12.1% of health care-associated infections). Device-associated infections (i.e., central-catheter-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, and ventilator-associated pneumonia), which have traditionally been the focus of programs to prevent health care-associated infections, accounted for 25.6% of such infections. We estimated that there were 648,000 patients with 721,800 health care-associated infections in U.S. acute care hospitals in 2011. Results of this multistate prevalence survey of health care-associated infections indicate that public health surveillance and prevention activities should continue to address C. difficile infections. As device- and procedure-associated infections decrease, consideration should be given to expanding surveillance and prevention activities to include other health care-associated infections.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              NHSN annual update: antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with healthcare-associated infections: annual summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006-2007.

              To describe the frequency of selected antimicrobial resistance patterns among pathogens causing device-associated and procedure-associated healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) reported by hospitals in the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). Data are included on HAIs (ie, central line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and surgical site infections) reported to the Patient Safety Component of the NHSN between January 2006 and October 2007. The results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing of up to 3 pathogenic isolates per HAI by a hospital were evaluated to define antimicrobial-resistance in the pathogenic isolates. The pooled mean proportions of pathogenic isolates interpreted as resistant to selected antimicrobial agents were calculated by type of HAI and overall. The incidence rates of specific device-associated infections were calculated for selected antimicrobial-resistant pathogens according to type of patient care area; the variability in the reported rates is described. Overall, 463 hospitals reported 1 or more HAIs: 412 (89%) were general acute care hospitals, and 309 (67%) had 200-1,000 beds. There were 28,502 HAIs reported among 25,384 patients. The 10 most common pathogens (accounting for 84% of any HAIs) were coagulase-negative staphylococci (15%), Staphylococcus aureus (15%), Enterococcus species (12%), Candida species (11%), Escherichia coli (10%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (6%), Enterobacter species (5%), Acinetobacter baumannii (3%), and Klebsiella oxytoca (2%). The pooled mean proportion of pathogenic isolates resistant to antimicrobial agents varied significantly across types of HAI for some pathogen-antimicrobial combinations. As many as 16% of all HAIs were associated with the following multidrug-resistant pathogens: methicillin-resistant S. aureus (8% of HAIs), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (4%), carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa (2%), extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant K. pneumoniae (1%), extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant E. coli (0.5%), and carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae, K. oxytoca, and E. coli (0.5%). Nationwide, the majority of units reported no HAIs due to these antimicrobial-resistant pathogens.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Biology (Basel)
                Biology (Basel)
                biology
                Biology
                MDPI
                2079-7737
                12 May 2021
                May 2021
                : 10
                : 5
                : 428
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Carrera de Médico Cirujano, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Tlalnepantla 54090, Estado de México, Mexico; nelly.rivera.yanez@ 123456iztacala.unam.mx (N.R.-Y.); glustein@ 123456iztacala.unam.mx (G.P.-M.); reali@ 123456unam.mx (J.R.-R.); merisam06@ 123456iztacala.unam.mx (M.I.M.-R.); armendez@ 123456unam.mx (A.R.M.-C.)
                [2 ]División de Investigación y Posgrado, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Tlalnepantla 54090, Estado de México, Mexico; mendezcatalacf@ 123456ired.unam.mx
                [3 ]Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Tlalnepantla 54090, Estado de México, Mexico; claudia_riveray@ 123456my.uvm.edu.mx
                [4 ]Laboratorio de Genética y Oncología Molecular, Laboratorio 5, Edificio A4, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Tlalnepantla 54090, Estado de México, Mexico
                [5 ]Laboratorio de Inmunología, Unidad de Morfofisiología y Función, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Tlalnepantla 54090, Estado de México, Mexico
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: o.nieto@ 123456comunidad.unam.mx ; Tel.: +52-5521-327-136
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3307-006X
                Article
                biology-10-00428
                10.3390/biology10050428
                8151468
                34065939
                5eeacd35-1629-4e0f-99f3-ff6eb477a136
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 23 April 2021
                : 10 May 2021
                Categories
                Review

                propolis,antibacterial,antifungal,antiparasitic,antiviral,bioactive compounds

                Comments

                Comment on this article