4. Discussion
headaches, fever, infections, pain, sore throats, infection, scratchy throats
DISEASE, EVENT, INFECTIONS, LONG COVID, INFECTION, COMMON COLD, EVENTS, FLU
The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of PEA (Levagen+) on URTI incidence, duration, and symptom severity in otherwise healthy adults over a 12-week period. Both groups were equally matched, with no between-group differences in participant demographics (A study by Masek and colleagues (1974) supplemented adults with 600 mg of Levagen+ three times per day (1800 mg of Levagen+ per day) for 12 days. Following supplementation, those with supplementation had fewer episodes of fever and pain and fewer reported headaches and sore throats compared with a placebo group [Kahlich and colleagues [The results of the studies conducted by Masek and colleagues support our findings of a decrease in scratchy throats, sick days, and the total number of URTI episodes in the PEA group. However, the present study did not find a change in reported pain or fever. Based on the mode of action and its anti-inflammatory properties, it would be expected that changes in pain and fever would be observed in the Levagen+ group. Although no significant difference was observed for reported fevers, fewer people in the Levagen+ group reported experiencing a fever. Only 12.8% (5 out of 39) of people in the Levagen+ group who reported an event reported experiencing a fever compared to 25% (16 out of 64) in the placebo group. Fewer people reporting fever may be due to one of two possibilities: Either Levagen+ prevented people from developing a fever or the etiology of illnesses may have been different between groups. As both groups reported an equivalent number of other symptoms (There are several other possible reasons for the lack of significance of the reported fever in the present study compared to that of Masek. The first is the difference in dose (1800 mg vs. 600 mg per day). Despite Levagen+One factor potentially affecting the severity of illnesses, and a potential limitation of this study, was that it was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, participants likely experienced fewer URTI events than normal due to isolation, social distancing, and additional sanitation measures being taken. The additional health measures during COVID-19 potentially affected both the number of infections and the severity. People may have been able to rest and recover more during COVID-19 due to both increased isolation and the ability to work from home. The ability to stay home more may have allowed people to rest more and therefore recover faster, limiting the severity of the infection and therefore potentially limiting fever development. However, as all participants were exposed to the same COVID-19 conditions, the results can reasonably be expected to represent the effectiveness of Levagen+, and the only difference due to COVID-19 may be a lower percentage of people experiencing a URTI and symptoms being less severe.COVID-19 was not a focus of the current study, but it is possible that some of the participants involved experienced COVID-19 while taking the study’s product. The effect that Levagen+Another limitation of the study was our inability to collect biological samples. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we opted to exclude biological sample collection in order to minimize the potential risk participants might have in traveling to a collection center. Had we been able to collect biological samples, we could have tested for the specific infection the participants had while reporting symptoms. The detection of the infectious agent would have helped classify each reported event into different disease states, enabling us to better understand the effect of Levagen+ in different etiologies. It is possible that PEA may work better in some infections than others. The collection of blood samples would also have allowed us to analyse various pathways that PEA is reported to act upon (e.g., inflammatory cytokines NF-κB and mast cells).Severity classification is another potential limitation of this study. Due to the number of participants reporting events, grouping events into different severity classifications (e.g., total impact from the WURSS-24 questionnaire) in order to conduct statistical analysis was not possible. It is plausible that PEA may act better on different severities due to its mode of action. For example, PEA has demonstrated the ability to increase β-enzyme activity, which, in turn, enhances the synthesis of the endocannabinoid 2-Arachidonoylglycerol, suggesting that an increased endocannabinoid tone may modulate mast cell degranulation [Future studies into the efficacy of PEA would benefit from looking at specific etiologies and severity within URTIs. Further research on the effect of PEA on fever would require larger numbers that focus specifically on the temperature development of participants during an illness. Another study looking specifically at people experiencing COVID-19 or people experiencing Long COVID symptoms would help determine whether PEA is able to be as effective relative to COVID-19 as it is with respect to the common cold and flu.