Background:A number of diabetic patients with diabetic neuropathy, in India, were treated with epalrestat, an aldose reductase inhibitor. In this study, more than 2000 patients with diabetic neuropathy, who were treated with epalrestat for 3-12 months, were analyzed to assess the efficacy and the adverse reactions of the drug.Method:We analyzed the subjective symptoms (spontaneous pain, numbness, coldness and hypoesthesia) and the nerve function tests (motor nerve conduction velocity, sensory nerve conduction velocity and vibration threshold).Result:The improvement rate of the subjective symptoms was 75% (slightly improved or better) and that of the nerve function tests 36%. Adverse drug reactions were encountered in 52 (2.5%) of the 2190 patients, none of which was severe.Conclusion:Although data are limited, it is strongly suggested that epalrestat is a highly effective and safe agent for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy.

Given the constraints of resources, thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is under evaluation in developing countries like India, especially in areas such as western Utter Pradesh, where it is overly crowded and there is poor affordability.Aim:This study was done to evaluate recombinant tissue plasminogen activator r-tpa in acute ischemic stroke in hyper acute phase, in selected patients of western Utter Pradesh, in terms of feasibility and effectivity.Design:Open, non randomized study.Materials and Methods:Thirty two patients were classified using Trial of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke treatment (TOAST) criteria (large artery atherosclerotic = 8; cardio embolic = 6; small vessel occlusion = 14; other determined etiology = 2; undetermined etiology = 2). The mean time to reach the hospital was 2 h (1.15-3.0), the mean door to CT scan 20 min (10-40) and door to r-tpa injection was 30 min (24-68). The National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores ranged from 11-22 (mean 15.5 +2.7). The dose of r-tpa administered was 0.9 mg/kg.Results:Twenty one patients (65.6%) showed significant improvement on the NIHSS score, at 48 h (4 points). (Mean change = 10; range = 4-17). At one month, 25 (78%) recorded improvement on the Barthel index (mean change = 45%). One developed frontal lobe hemorrhage and another developed recurrent stroke; one died of aspiration; and four showed no improvement. Modified Rankin score (m RS) was administered at the end of three months to 28 patients (90%); however, the rest could not be directly observed. The average modified Rankin Score was 1.2 (0-2).Conclusions:Hyperacute thrombolysis was found feasible and effective in selected patients with AIS from western Utter Pradesh and who had poor affordability.

The role of the calcium channel blocker (verapamil) in kidney transplant is controversial. Verapamil has been hypothesized to mitigate ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI) to the allograft. Herein, we evaluated the effect of intra-operative verapamil administration in a large cohort of kidney transplants. Total 684 transplants were performed during 2007-2017. Of these, 348 (50.9%) transplants received verapamil (2.5 mg) Ver (+), and 336 (49.1%) did not, Ver (−). Based on the donor type, the study was divided into three groups; living donor (LD) (N = 270), neurological determination of death (NDD) (N = 394), and donation after cardiac death (DCD) (N = 20). Ver (−) subgrouphad more diabetic recipients as compared to Ver (+) subgroup in LD and NDD groups (P < 0.05). No significant difference was found for delayed graft function in any of the group (P > 0.05). Cold ischemia time and dialysis requirement were significantly higher in Ver (+) LD and NDD groups, respectively. Except for DCD group, there was no significant difference in eGFR (mL/min) immediately and 6 months after kidney transplant in any of the groups. Furthermore, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to account for potential confounders, but verapamil administration did not improve graft function in any of the groups (P > 0.05) after transplant. K E Y W O R D Scalcium channel blocker, ischemia reperfusion injury, kidney transplantation

No abstract