Introduction: Some cannabinoids have been identified as anti-inflammatory agents; however, their potential therapeutic or prophylactic applications remain controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to provide a timely and comprehensive insight into cannabinoid-mediated pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine responses in preclinical in vivo studies. Methods and Materials: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Scopus. Eligible studies where cannabinoids had been evaluated for their effect on inflammation in animal models were included in the analysis. Data were extracted from 26 of 4247 eligible full text articles, and risk of bias was assessed using the SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) tool. Studies examined cannabidiol (CBD; n=20); cannabigerol (CBG; n=1); delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC; n=2); THC and CBD separately (n=1); and THC and CBD in combination (n=2). Results: Tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and interferon gamma were the most commonly studied pro-inflammatory cytokines and their levels were consistently reduced after treatment with CBD, CBG, or CBD+THC, but not with THC alone. The association between cannabinoid-induced anti-inflammatory response and disease severity was examined. In 22 studies where CBD, CBG, or CBD in combination with THC were administered, a reduction in the levels of at least one inflammatory cytokine was observed, and in 24 studies, some improvements in disease or disability were apparent. THC alone did not reduce pro-inflammatory cytokine levels (n=3), but resulted in improvements in neuropathic pain in one study. Conclusions: This review shows that CBD, CBG, and CBD+THC combination exert a predominantly anti-inflammatory effect in vivo, whereas THC alone does not reduce pro-inflammatory or increase anti-inflammatory cytokines. It is anticipated that this information could be used to inform human clinical trials of cannabinoids, focusing on CBD and CBG to reduce inflammation across a range of pathophysiological processes.

P300 (or P3) is a major positive complex in the human event-related potential, occurring some 300 ms after stimulus onset and long thought to be the cortical correlate of the Orienting Reflex, our automatic attention-grabbing response to a novel stimulus. The Novelty P3 was the third P3 subcomponent discovered (after P3a and P3b) and appeared promising in its sensitivity to stimulus novelty, the defining characteristic of the Orienting Reflex. But some 15 years later it was claimed to be indistinguishable from the previously-discovered P3a. This led to a decline in interest in the field and confused nomenclature, with some studies using “P3a” and “Novelty P3” interchangeably. However, recent similar studies have again reported three subcomponents of the P3. Further, using single-stimulus habituation paradigms, in addition to P3a and P3b, a later decrementing P3 subcomponent has been reported and recently labelled “HabP3” to avoid contention. We report three studies to resolve this chaotic situation, arguing for identification of the late subcomponent following the P3a and P3b as the Novelty P3. Reinstatement of the Novelty P3 as the central index of the Orienting Reflex will have widespread impact in a range of theoretical, practical and clinical areas involving novelty processing and attention.

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Ganoderma lucidum for the treatment of hyperglycaemia and other cardiovascular risk components of metabolic syndrome using a prospective, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Eighty-four participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome were randomised to one of three intervention groups: Ganoderma lucidum, Ganoderma lucidum with Cordyceps sinensis, or placebo. The dosage was 3 g/day of Ganoderma lucidum, with or without Cordyceps sinensis, for 16 weeks. The primary outcome measure was blood glucose (glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA1c] and fasting plasma glucose [FPG]); a number of secondary outcome measures were also tested. Data from the two intervention groups were combined. The combined intervention had no effect on any of the primary (baseline-adjusted difference in means: HbA1c = 0.13%, 95% CI [−0.35, 0.60], p = 0.60; FPG = 0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI [−0.90, 0.96], p = 0.95) or secondary outcome measures over the course of the 16-week trial, and no overall increased risk of adverse events with either active treatment. Evidence from this randomised clinical trial does not support the use of Ganoderma lucidum for treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in people with diabetes mellitus or metabolic syndrome. This Clinical Trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on November 23, 2006. Trial ID: ACTRN12606000485538 and can be accessed here: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=81705.

Dementia is a leading cause of mental and physical disability. Vascular dementia (VaD) is the second most common cause of dementia after Alzheimer’s disease (AD) constituting 10–15% of the dementia population. Currently there are no approved pharmaceutical options for VaD and the conventional anti‐AD therapies provide only modest, short‐term relief of symptoms associated with VaD. Herbal medicines have been used for the management of dementia‐like symptoms for centuries and may provide viable therapies for VaD due to their multicomponent and multitarget approach. This review is designed to provide an updated overview on the current status of herbal medicine research, with an emphasis on Chinese herbal medicine, for the treatment of VaD or dementia. A case study is also provided to demonstrate the development process of a novel standardized complex herbal formulation for VaD. The article reveals some preliminary evidence to support the use of single and complex herbal preparations for VaD and dementia. Multiple issues in relation to clinical and preclinical research have been identified and future research directions are discussed.