5 Fast Facts: Plant Extracts Relieve Hand Osteoarthritis
Researchers in Belgium found that a daily combination of plant extracts significantly reduced hand OA pain over time.
1. Patients had real pain relief.
People with hand OA who took Curcuma longa (turmeric) and Boswellia serrata had noticeably better pain reduction over 3 months than those on placebo, about 8-9 points better on the pain scale.
2. Quality of life received a boost, too.
Patients didn't just feel less pain; they also reported feeling better overall and rated their quality of life higher than the placebo group.
3. Safe and easy to stick with.
Patients took the supplement consistently (over 90% adhered to it), and side effects were comparable to those of the placebo.
4. Well-done study — but with a few limits.
This solid randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial focused on patient-reported outcomes rather than structural improvements or radiographic findings.
5. Another option for the toolbox.
These extracts aren't a replacement for standard care, but they may be a safe adjunct for patients wanting complementary therapies for hand OA pain, especially those who prefer more 'natural' options.
Bottom line: Current evidence indicates that plant extracts provide symptomatic relief for hand OA; however, they do not address the underlying joint pathology. Counsel patients on these limitations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
21 minutes ago
- Medscape
Anticoagulants in AF Post-ICH: The Dilemma Continues
TOPLINE: In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with a recent episode of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), the use of oral anticoagulants significantly reduced net adverse clinical events — primarily driven by a reduced risk for ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism — but with an increased risk for recurrent ICH. METHODOLOGY: Oral anticoagulants prevent stroke in patients with AF, but their efficacy in those who have recently experienced an ICH remains unclear. Researchers conducted a systematic literature review through March 2025 and performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the use of oral anticoagulants with placebo or antiplatelets in patients with nonvalvular AF after a spontaneous ICH. The analysis included 653 patients (weighted mean age, 78.2 years; 38% women; 95% White) from four trials with a low risk for bias, with follow-up durations ranging from a mean of 0.53 years to a median of 1.9 years. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events — a composite of ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism, nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, recurrent ICH, and extracranial major bleeding. TAKEAWAY: The breakdown of oral anticoagulants used was 65% apixaban, 15% edoxaban, 14% dabigatran, 4% rivaroxaban, and 1% warfarin. The use of oral anticoagulants reduced net adverse clinical events by 31% (relative risk [RR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93) and ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism by 76% (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.61), translating into a number needed to treat of 12 and 8, respectively. However, oral anticoagulants carried a more than threefold higher risk or recurrent ICH (RR, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.30-7.85), translating to a number needed to harm of 22. There were no significant differences in fatal ischemic stroke, fatal ICH, major extracranial hemorrhage, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death on the basis of oral anticoagulant use. IN PRACTICE: '[This] meta-analysis informs shared decision-making between clinicians and patients, demonstrating a net clinical benefit of OACs [oral anticoagulants] predominantly through a reduction in ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism, while being cognizant of an increased risk of recurrent ICH,' the researchers wrote. 'The magnitude of benefit and risk may differ across ICH subtypes and with the timing of OACs initiation, warranting further investigation through [individual patient data] meta-analysis,' they further added. SOURCE: This study was led by Kuan-Yu Chi, MD, and Pei-Lun Lee, MD, of Jacobi Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, and Yu Chang, MD, of the National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan. It was published online on July 21, 2025, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. LIMITATIONS: This study lacked individual patient data, which prevented deeper analyses such as timing of events. The number of included trials and participants were insufficient to detect the effects on outcomes that occurred less frequently. All the included trials had an open-label design. DISCLOSURES: Three authors reported receiving research funding and awards from various sources including the Johns Hopkins University Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center funded by the National Institute on Aging; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and National Institutes of Health National Institute of Aging. One author reported serving as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Merck, and HeartFlow, Inc. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Medscape
21 minutes ago
- Medscape
Prevention, Screening, Treatment: Impact on Cancer Deaths
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. I'm Dr Maurie Markman from City of Hope, and I'd like to discuss a very important study. I think many of you may have heard about this, but it's important to emphasize what these investigators reported in terms of the impact of what we are doing in the cancer world today and, in my opinion, what the focus needs to be on in the future. The paper I'm referring to is "Estimation of Cancer Deaths Averted From Prevention, Screening, and Treatment Efforts, 1975-2020," published in JAMA Oncology . This was a very interesting effort; there was modeling done, and assumptions were made, in order to do what these investigators did. But this is, I think, very high-quality and reasonable data science. The paper outlines the assumptions made in coming to the conclusions reached by these investigators. They looked at breast, cervix, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers — obviously, major cancers — and specifically looked at what the impact has been over the past 45 years of these three different strategies in averting deaths: prevention, screening, and actual treatment. The bottom line, as reported by these investigators, is that over this 45-year period, 5.94 million deaths have been averted in these five cancers combined, due to the efforts of countless numbers of individuals, researchers, clinicians, public health officials, government regulators, etc. It's an incredible and an enormously positive contribution to society and to individual patient health. They note, and this is a powerful message, that 8 of the 10 deaths, 80%, that had been averted were due to efforts in cancer prevention and screening. It may come as a surprise to some, but not to all, because of our often very intense focus and money spent on treatments for established and advanced cancers over the past decades. There's no intent either in this paper or by me to denigrate — in any way, shape, or form — the enormous efforts that have been made in treatment. But if you look at the question of deaths averted, the vast majority have come from prevention and screening efforts. And clearly, there's cost involved in these efforts, but far less than that associated with development of treatments. They're even more specific in this paper: Screening, according to these investigators, has been responsible for essentially all reduction in cervix cancer, which we certainly know from the enormous contributions of the Pap smear screening and now HPV screening: 25% of breast cancer deaths were averted due to screening; 56% from prostate cancer; 79% of deaths from colorectal cancer; and, of course, from lung cancer, 98% of the impacts on cancer deaths has resulted from a reduction in smoking. So, overall a tremendous impact, a positive impact. So many individuals and organizations avert deaths, but it's critical to remember the role of prevention and screening. And as we move forward to the future, as we look at the epidemic we have of obesity in this country and the concern about the risk of alcohol on the risk for cancer, it is important to remember the critical role to the present but also for the future of prevention and screening. Thank you for your attention.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Novartis AG (NVS): Jim Cramer Wonders Whether Its CEO Is Leaving
We recently published . Novartis AG (NYSE:NVS) is one of the stocks Jim Cramer recently discussed. Novartis AG (NYSE:NVS) is a Swiss pharmaceutical company that is one of the largest of its kind. Its shares have gained 17% year-to-date, but the shares lost 2.5% in July after the firm's fiscal first quarter earnings report. The results saw Novartis AG (NYSE:NVS) post $14.05 billion in revenue, which fell short of analyst estimates of $14.18 billion. However, the firm's operating profit sat at $5.93 billion which was higher than the $5.69 billion that analysts had penciled in. For his part, Cramer had a shocking question on his mind as he wondered whether Novartis AG (NYSE:NVS) CEO Dr. Vasant Narasimhan was leaving the company: '[On NVS raising the guide and getting a buyback]'They did have one failure of a drug, that was very, very important but I saw that Vass, Vass is going? He's a terrific CEO.' A doctor holding a microscope in front of a laboratory sample of healthcare products. Loomis Sayles Global Growth Fund mentioned Novartis AG (NYSE:NVS) in its Q1 2025 investor letter. Here is what the firm said: 'Novartis AG (NYSE:NVS) is a diversified global healthcare company with market leadership in branded pharmaceuticals across a broad range of treatment areas, including oncology (30% of revenues), immunology (almost 20% of revenues), cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic (almost 20%), and neurology (10%). The company also derives over 20% of revenues from mature branded products in non-core therapy areas. With the October 2023 spinoff of the company's Sandoz generics and biosimilars division, which followed the 2019 spinoff of ophthalmologic equipment maker Alcon and 2018 divestiture of a consumer health joint venture, the company is now purely focused on innovative medicines, which accounted for about 80% of revenue and 85% of core operating income prior to the Sandoz spinoff. The company generates over 50% of revenue from the Americas, approximately 30% from Europe, and almost 20% from the rest of the world.' While we acknowledge the potential of NVS as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
