Search

Hui Xue,1,2 Wenping Xiang,2 Yichuan Yu,3 Guorong Liu,2 Yi Chong,2 Jiying Zhou1 1Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; 2Department of Neurology, Baotou Central Hospital, Inner Mongolia, Baotou, China; 3Department of Emergency, Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China Background: Vestibular paroxysmia (VP) is a rare episodic peripheral vestibular disorder. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and acceptability of carbamazepine (CBZ) plus betahistine mesilate tablets (BMT) (CBZ+BMT) and oxcarbazepine (OXC) plus BMT (OXC+BMT) in treating VP, and investigated whether the synergistic effect could be increased along with the increased dose of BMT.Methods: VP patients were recruited and randomly assigned to receive CBZ+BMT or OXC+BMT. The doses of CBZ and OXC were set to 200 and 300 mg/time, twice daily, respectively. The doses of BMT were set to 12 and 18 mg/time, twice daily. Half of the patients in each group received BMT 12 mg/time and the other half received BMT 18 mg/time. The treatment was continued for 12 weeks. The vertigo frequency, vertigo score, vertigo duration, response rate, and drug-related side effects were analyzed.Results: In total, 92 patients in the CBZ+BMT group and 93 patients in the OXC+BMT group completed this trial. After 12 weeks of treatment, the two groups had similar average vertigo frequency, average vertigo score, average vertigo duration, and response rate. But the incidence of side effects was significantly higher in the CBZ+BMT group than in the OXC+BMT group (p=0.04). Subgroup analysis found that patients receiving BMT (18 mg) had greater reductions in average vertigo frequency, average vertigo duration, and average vertigo score, and higher response rates than patients receiving BMT (12 mg).Conclusion: These results demonstrated that OXC+BMT may be suitable as an alternative method in VP patients with CBZ hypersensitivity, and the synergistic effect could be increased along with the increased dose of BMT. Keywords: vestibular paroxysmia, betahistine mesilate tablets, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine

Background: Unfractionated heparin is commonly used for anticoagulation in extracorporeal membrane oxy-genation (ECMO). Several studies have shown that nafamostat mesilate (NM) has comparable clinical out-comes to unfractionated heparin. This study compared anticoagulation with NM and heparin in a large-animal model. Methods: Beagle dogs (n=8; weight, 6.5-9 kg) were placed on venovenous ECMO. Blood samples were taken every hour and the following parameters were compared: hemoglobin level, activated partial thrombo-plastin time (aPTT), thromboelastography (TEG) data, platelet function, and inflammatory cytokine levels. Results: In both groups, the aPTT was longer than the baseline value. Although the aPTT in the NM group was shorter than in the heparin group, the TEG parameters were similar between the 2 groups. Hemoglobin levels decreased in both groups, but the decrease was less with NM than with heparin (p=0.049). Interleukin (IL)-1β levels significantly decreased in the NM group (p=0.01), but there was no difference in the levels of tumor necrosis factor alpha or IL-10 between the 2 groups. Conclusion: NM showed a similar anticoagulant effect to that of unfractionated heparin, with fewer bleeding complications. NM also had anti-inflammatory properties during ECMO. Based on this preclinical study, NM may be a good alternative candidate for anti-coagulation in ECMO.

Background/purpose: The evidence provided by syntheses of the preventative effects of gabexate mesilate against pancreatitis among patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is limited and highly heterogeneous. To enhance the understanding of this topic, this study aimed to provide overview of gabexate mesilate on preventing post ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) by synthesizing all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We searched three databases for relevant RCTs. Two authors independently extracted data of pancreatitis incidence after ERCP, abdominal pain within 48 hours, and hyperamylasemia for quality assessment and meta-analysis. Results: Thirteen RCTs with 3718 patients undergoing ERCP met the eligibility criteria and were included. The results revealed that the use of gabexate mesilate led to lower PEP (Peto odds ratio: 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49 to 0.89), especially in the subgroup of gabexate mesilate infusion starting more than 30 min (Risk ratio: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.72). Conclusion: The present synthesis found that gabexate mesilate could be an option of prophylactic treatment of pancreatitis for patients undergoing ERCP, and reveals that it is favorable to administer it starting 30 min before the ERCP. This evidence may improve the clinical prevention of PEP.

Background and Aim: Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis is not an uncommon adverse event but may not be avoidable. Various pharmacological and endoscopic techniques have been used to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), but most have been ineffective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the preventative effect of an intrapancreatic duct injection of nafamostat mesilate (NM) on PEP. Methods: This experimental study was conducted on 8 mini pigs. Animals were randomly allocated to a control group (n = 4) and or a NM group (n = 4). Pancreatitis was induced by infusing contrast medium into the main pancreatic duct by ERCP in all animals. After contrast medium injection, NM (50 mg/5 cc) was infused in the NM group and the same amount of 5% dextrose solution was infused in the control group. Twenty-four hours after endoscopic procedures, pancreatic inflammation, edema, vacuolization, necrosis and hemorrhage were evaluated histologically. Results: All animals survived until the end of the experiment. No peri-procedural technical difficulty or adverse event was encountered. Histologic examinations confirmed acute pancreatitis in all animals. In histologic acute pancreatitis scoring, no significant intergroup differences were observed between edema (P = 0.134), leukocyte infiltration (P = 0.356), vacuolization (P = 1.000), or hemorrhage (P = 0.071) scores. However, mean necrosis score was significantly lower in the NM group (1.0) than in controls (1.75, P = 0.024). Conclusion: NM injection into the intrapancreatic duct produced promising results with respect to the prevention of PEP development, especially regarding the prevention of necrosis.

We previously reported that camostat mesilate (CM) had renoprotective and antihypertensive effects in rat CKD models. In this study, we examined if CM has a distinct renoprotective effect from telmisartan (TE), a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAS) inhibitor, on the progression of CKD. We evaluated the effect of CM (400 mg/kg/day) and/or TE (10 mg/kg/day) on renal function, oxidative stress, renal fibrosis, and RAS components in the adenine-induced rat CKD model following 5-weeks treatment period. The combination therapy with CM and TE significantly decreased the adenine-induced increase in serum creatinine levels compared with each monotherapy, although all treatment groups showed similar reduction in blood pressure. Similarly, adenine-induced elevation in oxidative stress markers and renal fibrosis markers were significantly reduced by the combination therapy relative to each monotherapy. Furthermore, the effect of the combination therapy on plasma renin activity (PRA) and plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC) was similar to that of TE monotherapy, and CM had no effect on both PRA and PAC, suggesting that CM has a distinct pharmacological property from RAS inhibition. Our findings indicate that CM could be a candidate drug for an add-on therapy for CKD patients who had been treated with RAS inhibitors.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of nafamostat mesilate in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) by conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis., Method: We retrieved for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about compare nafamostat mesilate with placebo in preventing PEP published before August 23, 2022, in 5 major electronic databases. The primary outcome was PEP rate, and the secondary outcome was post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (PEHA) rate. Subgroup analyses were performed to reveal the factors that may affect the preventive effect of nafamostat. Assessment of the quality of evidence was conducted based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system., Results: According to the search strategy and criteria of inclusion and exclusion, 8 articles with a number of 3210 patients were included. The PEP incidence of the nafamostat group was inferior compared with the placebo group (4.6% vs 8.5%, RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.66). Subgroup analyses revealed that nafamostat had a preventive effect on patients with different risk stratification (High-risk: RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.86, Low-risk: RR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.17-0.47). Different doses (20 mg: RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.36-0.69, 50 mg: RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27-0.74) and duration (<12 hour: RR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.81, ≥12 h: RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.66) of administration of nafamostat are adequate for the prevention of PEP, but postoperative administration may not help (preoperative: RR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.39-0.69, postoperative: RR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.23-1.23). Nafamostat may not efficacious in preventing severe PEP (Mild: RR = 0.49, 95% CI, 0.35-0.68, Moderate: RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25-0.86, Severe: RR = 0.91, 95% CI, 0.25-3.29) or in low-quality studies (Low-quality: RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.13-3.60, High-quality: RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.37-0.65)., Conclusion: Preoperative use of nafamostat can effectively prevent PEP in patients with various risk stratification. Nafamostat can prevent mild and moderate PEP, but may not prevent severe PEP and PEHA. There should be more high-quality RCTs in future to strengthen the evidence of nafamostat in preventing PEP., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the antiviral effects and safety of nafamostat in early-onset patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Methods: In this exploratory multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients were assigned to three groups within 5 days of symptom onset, with 10 participants in each group: nafamostat at either 0.2 mg/kg/h or 0.1 mg/kg/h or a standard-of-care group. The primary endpoint was area under the curve for decrease in SARS-CoV-2 viral load in nasopharyngeal samples from baseline to day 6., Results: Of the 30 randomized patients, 19 received nafamostat. Overall, 10 patients received low-dose nafamostat, 9 patients received high-dose nafamostat, and 10 received standard-of-care. The detected viruses were Omicron strains. The regression coefficient for area under the curve for decrease in viral load as the response variable and nafamostat dose per body weight as the explanatory variable showed a significant relationship of -40.1 (95% confidence interval, -74.1 to -6.2; P = 0.022). Serious adverse events were not observed in either group. Phlebitis occurred in ca. 50% of patients treated with nafamostat., Conclusions: Nafamostat exerts virus load-reducing effects in patients with early-onset COVID-19., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The trans-membrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2) is essential for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cell entry and infection. Efficacy and safety of TMPRSS2 inhibitors in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have not been evaluated in randomized trials. Methods: We conducted an investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter trial in patients hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from April 4, to December 31, 2020. Within 48 h of admission, participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive the TMPRSS2 inhibitor camostat mesilate 200 mg three times daily for 5 days or placebo. The primary outcome was time to discharge or clinical improvement measured as ≥2 points improvement on a 7-point ordinal scale. Other outcomes included 30-day mortality, safety and change in oropharyngeal viral load. Findings: 137 patients were assigned to receive camostat mesilate and 68 to placebo. Median time to clinical improvement was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7) in the camostat group and 5 days (IQR, 2 to 10) in the placebo group (P = 0·31). The hazard ratio for 30-day mortality in the camostat compared with the placebo group was 0·82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0·24 to 2·79; P = 0·75). The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. Median change in viral load from baseline to day 5 in the camostat group was -0·22 log10 copies/mL (p

The presented case regards a 63-year-old male patient who underwent radical surgery for an intermediate risk gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) and thereafter was treated with imatinib mesilate at a daily dose of 400 mg for one year. Adjuvant therapy for primary GIST has proven benefit in extending relapse free survival in randomised controlled phase III trials; the advantage in overall survival, however, is yet to be proved. Defined risk factors for recurrence are based on GIST size, location, and mitotic rate provide useful guidelines for selecting patients for adjuvant therapy considerations. Nevertheless, it is currently unclear how to select those patients who would benefit the most, which is the optimal dose and treatment duration, and, importantly, if the use of adjuvant imatinib could enhance the chance of cure. The case report will be used as a paradigmatic springboard for further discussion.

A 65-year-old man was transferred from the Department of Vascular Surgery to Nephrology because of cardiac arrest during hemodialysis. He underwent incision and drainage for treatment of a buttock abscess. Nafamostat mesilate was used as an anticoagulant for hemodialysis to address bleeding from the incision and drainage site. Sudden cardiac arrest occurred after 15 minutes of dialysis. The patient was treated in the intensive care unit for 5 days. Continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration was started without any anticoagulant in the intensive care unit. Conventional hemodialysis was reinitiated, and nafamostat mesilate was used again because of a small amount of continued bleeding. Ten minutes after hemodialysis, the patient complained of anaphylactic signs and symptoms such as dyspnea, hypotension, and facial swelling. Epinephrine, dexamethasone, and pheniramin were injected under the suspicion of anaphylactic shock, and the patient recovered. Total immunoglobulin E titer was high, and skin prick test revealed weak positivity for nafamostat mesilate. We first report a case of anaphylactic shock caused by nafamostat mesilate in Korea.

Thermogravimetry and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) are useful techniques that have been successfully applied in the pharmaceutical industry to reveal important information regarding the physicochemical properties of drug and excipient molecules such as stability, purity and formulation compatibility among others. The present work reports studies of the thermal behavior of antihypertensive drug doxazosin mesilate as raw material and in the form of tablets. The purity was determined by DSC and specialized pharmacopeial method. Analysis of the DSC data indicated that the degree of purity of doxazosin mesilate was similar to that found by the official HPLC method used in the British pharmacopoeia, BP 2011. The simplicity and sensitivity of thermal analysis justify its application in the quality control of pharmaceutical compounds.