The scope of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of taking colostrum orally for the prevention of flu illnesses associated with winter as compared to the anti-flu vaccine, using as a control a group of subjects given no prophylaxis. 144 subjects were included; 137 completed the 3-month follow-up. There were 17 dropouts as a result of non-medical causes. The groups evaluated during the study (no prophylaxis, vaccine only, colostrum only and colostrum + vaccine) were comparable. Among the subjects treated with colostrum, the average number of occurrences per individual within 2 months (0.335; range 0-3) was significantly lower than those recorded for the non-treated subjects (25% of those recorded for the non-treatment group; p < 0.05) as well as those treated with vaccine only (among the subjects who used colostrum, there was a 30% rate of occurrence as compared to those vaccinated but taking no colostrum; p < 0.05). The difference is considerable and significant (p < 0.05) considering the 2-month and the 3-month follow-ups. The number of sick days was about 3 times higher in the subjects that were not treated with colostrum and in those vaccinated but receiving no colostrum. The related costs, based on days lost from work in order to seek needed treatment for the flu and its potential complications, showed the same trend. In subjects treated with colostrum, the cost due to sickness and lost days was around 30% of that seen in the groups that did not use colostrum. If hospital stays resulting from bronchopulmonary complications also are taken into account (only seen in subjects not treated with colostrum), the difference in cost really becomes significant (p < 0.05).

Vorbeugung von grippalen infekten mit colostrum 1

Ledda, A.;Vinciguerra, G.;
2007-01-01

Abstract

The scope of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of taking colostrum orally for the prevention of flu illnesses associated with winter as compared to the anti-flu vaccine, using as a control a group of subjects given no prophylaxis. 144 subjects were included; 137 completed the 3-month follow-up. There were 17 dropouts as a result of non-medical causes. The groups evaluated during the study (no prophylaxis, vaccine only, colostrum only and colostrum + vaccine) were comparable. Among the subjects treated with colostrum, the average number of occurrences per individual within 2 months (0.335; range 0-3) was significantly lower than those recorded for the non-treated subjects (25% of those recorded for the non-treatment group; p < 0.05) as well as those treated with vaccine only (among the subjects who used colostrum, there was a 30% rate of occurrence as compared to those vaccinated but taking no colostrum; p < 0.05). The difference is considerable and significant (p < 0.05) considering the 2-month and the 3-month follow-ups. The number of sick days was about 3 times higher in the subjects that were not treated with colostrum and in those vaccinated but receiving no colostrum. The related costs, based on days lost from work in order to seek needed treatment for the flu and its potential complications, showed the same trend. In subjects treated with colostrum, the cost due to sickness and lost days was around 30% of that seen in the groups that did not use colostrum. If hospital stays resulting from bronchopulmonary complications also are taken into account (only seen in subjects not treated with colostrum), the difference in cost really becomes significant (p < 0.05).
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11697/123100
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact