Ali Albarrati

Prof. Dr. Ali Albarrati

King Saud University, Riyadh, Ar Riyāḑ, Saudi Arabia
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
8 July 2022 in Inflammopharmacology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SKSunishtha Kalra
Sunishtha Kalra
RMRohit Malik
Rohit Malik
SGSingh Govind
Singh Govind
Saurabh BhatiaSaurabh Bhatia
Saurabh Bhatia
Ahmed Al-HarrasiAhmed Al-Harrasi
Ahmed Al-Harrasi
Murtaza TambuwalaMurtaza Tambuwala
Murtaza Tambuwala
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an important global health concern that represents a leading cause of death and disability. It occurs due to direct impact or hit on the head caused by factors such as motor vehicles, crushes, and assaults. During the past decade, an abundance of new evidence highlighted the importance of inflammation in the secondary damage response that contributes to neurodegenerative and neurological deficits after TBI. It results in disruption of the blood–brain barrier (BBB) and initiates the release of macrophages, neutrophils, and lymphocytes at the injury site. A growing number of researchers have discovered various signalling pathways associated with the initiation and progression of inflammation. Targeting different signalling pathways (NF-κB, JAK/STAT, MAPKs, PI3K/Akt/mTOR, GSK-3, Nrf2, RhoGTPase, TGF-β1, and NLRP3) helps in the development of novel anti-inflammatory drugs in the management of TBI. Several synthetic and herbal drugs with both anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective potential showed effective results. This review summarizes different signalling pathways, associated pathologies, inflammatory mediators, pharmacological potential, current status, and challenges with anti-inflammatory drugs.

9 June 2022 in Molecules
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Tapan BehlTapan Behl
Tapan Behl
SSSukhbir Singh
Sukhbir Singh
NSNeelam Sharma
Neelam Sharma
IZIshrat Zahoor
Ishrat Zahoor
Ali AlbarratiAli Albarrati
Ali Albarrati
Simona BungăuSimona Bungău
Simona Bungău
Traditionally, herbal compounds have been the focus of scientific interest for the last several centuries, and continuous research into their medicinal potential is underway. Berberine (BBR) is an isoquinoline alkaloid extracted from plants that possess a broad array of medicinal properties, including anti-diarrheal, anti-fibrotic, antidiabetic, anti-inflammatory, anti-obesity, antihyperlipidemic, antihypertensive, antiarrhythmic, antidepressant, and anxiolytic effects, and is frequently utilized as a traditional Chinese medicine. BBR promotes metabolisms of glucose and lipids by activating adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase, stimulating glycolysis and inhibiting functions of mitochondria; all of these ameliorate type 2 diabetes mellitus. BBR has also been shown to have benefits in congestive heart failure, hypercholesterolemia, atherosclerosis, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and polycystic ovary syndrome. BBR has been investigated as an interesting pharmacophore with the potential to contribute significantly to the research and development of novel therapeutic medicines for a variety of disorders. Despite its enormous therapeutic promise, the clinical application of this alkaloid was severely limited because of its unpleasant pharmacokinetic characteristics. Poor bioavailability, limited absorption, and poor water solubility are some of the obstacles that restricted its use. Nanotechnology has been suggested as a possible solution to these problems. The present review aims at recent updates on important therapeutic activities of BBR and different types of nanocarriers used for the delivery of BBR in different diseases.

1 November 2018 in BioMed Research International
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Ali AlbarratiAli Albarrati
Ali Albarrati
MAMansour Saleh M. Alghamdi
Mansour Saleh M. Alghamdi
RNRakan I. Nazer
Rakan I. Nazer
MAMaarab M. Alkorashy
Maarab M. Alkorashy
NANora Alshowier
Nora Alshowier
NGNichola Gale
Nichola Gale
Background. Regular exercise reduces risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) contributes to atherosclerosis formation, which is associated with an increased risk of CVD. The relationship between exercise therapy and lipid levels has been widely studied, but it is established that high-intensity exercise improves lipid profile. However, the effectiveness of low- to moderate-intensity exercise in altering LDL levels is controversial. This review aims to identify the current evidence and existing gaps in literature in this area.Methods. We searched and reviewed various randomized controlled clinical trials in the electronic databases EMBASE, CINAHL, the Web of Science, Cochrane, Pedro, Medline (PubMed), and Google Scholar using the keywords “low and moderate aerobic training,” “exercise”, “low-density lipoproteins,” “cholesterol,” “atherosclerosis,” and “coronary artery diseases markers.” We included studies that involved low- and/or moderate-intensity exercise training in apparently healthy adults over a period of 8 weeks and its effect on LDL levels. We selected a total of 11 studies from 469; nine were randomized controlled trials and two were systematic reviews.Results. Aerobic exercise of both low and moderate intensity resulted in a significant reduction of total cholesterol. Effects on low-density lipoprotein levels were significant, and most of the studies showed changes in the level without significant relation to the type of exercise. At the same time, exercise improved the health status and physical fitness of all the participants in the included studies.Conclusion. This study found that low- and moderate-intensity exercise and low-density lipoprotein levels were not proven to be significantly related, except in a few studies that were limited to dyslipidemia population.

5 March 2020 in BMC Pulmonary Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Ali AlbarratiAli Albarrati
Ali Albarrati
NGNichola S. Gale
Nichola S. Gale
MMMaggie M. Munnery
Maggie M. Munnery
JCJohn R. Cockcroft
John R. Cockcroft
DSDennis J. Shale
Dennis J. Shale
Background: Factors associated with reduced daily physical activity (DPA) in patients with COPD are still controversial. Physical inactivity in COPD increases risk of cardiovascular disease, frequent exacerbations, reduced health status, and increased symptoms. We hypothesised that reduced DPA in patients with COPD is independent of traditional risk factors including age and spirometry. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, DPA (over 7 days) was assessed on 88 community stable patients with COPD and 40 controls free from cardiorespiratory disease. Spirometry, body composition, number of exacerbations, handgrip strength (HGS), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC), arterial stiffness, 6-min walking distance (6MWD) and BODE index were also determined. Frequent exacerbation was defined as ≥2 and non-frequent exacerbation < 2. Results: Patients with COPD had reduced DPA and exercise capacity compared with controls similar in age, BMI and gender, p < 0.001. Frequent exacerbators had less DPA than infrequent exacerbators and both less than controls, p < 0.001. Patients with higher BODE index were less active than those with lower index. Time spent on moderate activity was related to cardiovascular risk factors including arterial stiffness. The DPA in patients was independent of age, gender, spirometry, body composition and HGS, p > 0.05. The level of breathlessness was superior to lung function in predicting the level of DPA. Conclusion: The level of DPA in COPD was independent of traditional risk factors. Breathlessness score is a better predictor of the DPA than lung function and handgrip strength.

13 June 2022 in Molecules
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MRMd. Mominur Rahman
Md. Mominur Rahman
Tapan BehlTapan Behl
Tapan Behl
MMMk Mk
Mk Mk
MAMd. Noor Alam
Md. Noor Alam
MFMd. Mohaimenul Islam Foysal
Md. Mohaimenul Islam Foysal
Simona BungăuSimona Bungău
Simona Bungău
Immunotherapy, which stimulates the body’s immune system, has received a considerable amount of press in recent years because of its powerful benefits. Cancer immunotherapy has shown long-term results in patients with advanced disease that are not seen with traditional chemotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, cytokines like interleukin 2 (IL-2) and interferon-alpha (IFN), and the cancer vaccine sipuleucel-T have all been licensed and approved by the FDA for the treatment of various cancers. These immunotherapy treatments boost anticancer responses by stimulating the immune system. As a result, they have the potential to cause serious, even fatal, inflammatory and immune-related side effects in one or more organs. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy are two immunotherapy treatments that are increasingly being used to treat cancer. Following their widespread usage in the clinic, a wave of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) impacting virtually every system has raised concerns about their unpredictability and randomness. Despite the fact that the majority of adverse effects are minimal and should be addressed with prudence, the risk of life-threatening complications exists. Although most adverse events are small and should be treated with caution, the risk of life-threatening toxicities should not be underestimated, especially given the subtle and unusual indications that make early detection even more difficult. Treatment for these issues is difficult and necessitates a multidisciplinary approach involving not only oncologists but also other internal medicine doctors to guarantee quick diagnosis and treatment. This study’s purpose is to give a fundamental overview of immunotherapy and cancer-related side effect management strategies.

9 September 2022 in Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FAFahad Abdulaziz Alrashed
Fahad Abdulaziz Alrashed
AAAbdulrahman Alsubiheen
Abdulrahman Alsubiheen
HAHessah farhan Alshammari
Hessah farhan Alshammari
SMSarah Ismail Mazi
Sarah Ismail Mazi
SASara Abou AlSaud
Sara Abou AlSaud
GDGAURAV DHIMAN
GAURAV DHIMAN
Our aim was to assess sleep quality in different subgroups of preclinical medical students, and then to identify specific lifestyle factors, academic and social factors as well as Corona virus related factors that were associated with poor sleeping quality and poor psychological health. Study participants were all medical students at King Saud University of Medical Sciences in the first and second years (648 students), and the study was conducted from December 2021 to January 2022. We administered the survey on paper as well as online. We used three types of questionnaires in this study. The first was a self-administered questionnaire, the second was a validated Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) for finding sleeping problems, and the third was a validated DASS 10 for determining Depression, Anxiety, and Stress. A total of 361 pre-clinical medical students consisted of 146 (40.4%) males and 215 (59.5%) females. The majority of the students, 246 (68.1%), were in their second year. Furthermore, in the current study, students who had poor academic performance (15.8%), satisfactory academic performance (21.3%), or good academic performance (30.7%) had significant sleeping problems found (χ2 = 19.4; p = 0.001), among them poor academic performance students 21.6%, satisfactory academic performance students (29.3%), and good academic performance students (29.3%) had moderate to severe levelled sleeping problems. Similarly, poor, satisfactory, and good academic performers experienced the highest levels of anxiety (poor = 21.5%; satisfactory = 22.1%; and good = 22.8%); stress (poor = 22.4%; satisfactory = 25.2%; and good = 22.4%); and depression (poor = 40.5%; satisfactory = 40.5%; and good = 11.9%). The majority of students (64.8%) reported that during the pandemic crisis their anxiety levels were high. Additionally, students reported significantly high sleeping issues (χ2 = 10.6; p = 0.001) and also serious psychological issues (Anxiety = 34.9 (0.000); Stress = 32.5 (0.000); and Depression = 5.42 (0.01)). There was a high prevalence of sleep issues, anxiety, stress, and depression among the pre-clinical medical students, with significantly higher sleeping disorders, anxiety, stress, and depression levels among those medical students who struggle with their academic performances, poor lifestyle factor, and poor Social and COVID management.