Does Green Brazilian Propolis Extract Improve Functional Capacity in Symptomatic Chronic Coronary Disease?—A Pilot Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Inflammation plays a critical role in the progression of coronary heart disease (CHD). Low-dose colchicine has shown promise in reducing cardiovascular events, and green Brazilian propolis extract (EPP-AF® (standardized Brazilian green propolis extract) was provided by Apis Flora Indl. Coml. Ltda, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil), known for its anti-inflammatory properties, may offer additional therapeutic benefits. This pilot study aimed to evaluate whether six weeks of EPP-AF® supplementation improves functional capacity assessed by treadmill exercise testing. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study conducted at a coronary disease clinic in Brazil. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with stable CHD receiving optimized medical therapy were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either 200 mg of EPP-AF® or placebo twice daily for six weeks. The primary outcome was the change in treadmill exercise duration (in seconds). Secondary outcomes included total exercise time, functional capacity (measured in metabolic equivalents of task [METs]), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels, the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina classification. Statistical analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: A total of 59 patients were randomized, with a median follow-up of 6.5 weeks. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between groups: the median change in treadmill test time was 39 s in the EPP-AF® group versus 30 s in the placebo group (p = 0.83). No improvements were observed in METs, hs-CRP levels, SAQ scores, or CCS class in the EPP-AF® group. No major adverse cardiovascular events occurred during the study. Conclusions: EPP-AF® did not improve functional capacity, inflammatory markers, or angina symptoms in patients with stable CHD compared to placebo.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".