SUMMARY Oxidant stress has been proposed as the initiating pathogenetic mechanism in pancreatitis, hence micronutrient antioxidant therapy has been assessed in patients with recurrent attacks and/or constant pancreatic pain. In a 20‐week double‐blind double‐dummy crossover trial active treatment was given as two types of tablets providing daily doses of 600 μg organic selenium, 9000 IU β carotene, 0.54 g vitamin C, 270 IU vitamin E and 2 g methionine. Of 28 patients enrolled, 20 adhered to the full protocol (idiopathic chronic 8, alcoholic chronic 7, idiopathic acute 5). Six patients had an attack whilst on placebo but none whilst on active treatment (P= 0.032). Analysis of visual analogue scoresheets to compare background pain in the 10‐week period before entry and during each phase of the trial, using a 10‐cm scale for each of 11 best descriptors, endorsed the beneficial effect of active treatment (placebo v baseline, P= 0.073; active v baseline, P < 0.001; active v placebo, P= 0.049). The same trend emerged from analysis of pain‐score diaries by conventional and time series methods. Micronutrient antioxidant therapy thus offers a new approach to the treatment of recurrent (non‐gallstone) pancreatitis and/or pancreatic pain.
The usefulness of micronutrient antioxidant therapy for recurrent (nongallstone) pancreatitis has recently been endorsed by a do-week doubleblind double-dummy cross-over trial in 20 patients. Treatment was delivered as two types of tablets, providing daily doses of 600 pg organic selenium, 9000 i.u. p-carotene, 0.54 g vitamin C, 270 i.u. vitamin E and 2 g methionine. We report antioxidant profiles in blood samples collected before entry, at the cross-over stage and upon completion of trial. Baseline serum concentrations of selenium, ,&carotene and vitamin E in the patients were significantly lower than in healthy controls, were unaltered by placebo and normalized by active treatment, but reverted to basal values in the subgroup that received placebo subsequently. The baseline serum concentration of a free radical marker-the 9-cis, 1 I-trans isomer of linoleic acid-was significantly higher in the patients than in controls, fell inexplicably in the placebo phase and fell further upon active treatment. Discriminant analysis eliminated the overlap in free radical marker and selenium concentrations between control sera on the one hand and baseline or post-placebo samples from the patients on the Correspondence to: Dr J. M. Braganza, Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Infirmary, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK. 229
The effect of UK-74,505, a specific platelet-activating factor (PAF) antagonist, on the early (EAR) and late asthmatic response (LAR) to inhaled allergen was studied in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. A total of eight adult male atopic asthmatic subjects completed the protocol (one withdrew after screening), all having demonstrated a dual response to inhaled allergen (EAR, > 20% fall in FEV1 between 0 and 1 h; LAR, > 15% fall in FEV1 between 4 and 8 h after challenge). Subjects were studied on 2 days at least 10 days apart. After measurement of baseline FEV1, subjects ingested a single oral dose of 100 mg UK-74,505 or matched placebo (P). Allergen challenge was performed 3 h later and the FEV1 was then measured for 8 h. There was no difference between UK-74,505 and placebo in the maximum percentage change from baseline (+/- SEM) for either EAR or LAR (EAR, UK-74,505 -25.6 +/- 4.8%, P -24.0 +/- 3.3%; LAR, UK-74,505 -20.8 +/- 4.4%, P -25.7 +/- 3.8%). There was no significant difference in the area under the percentage change from baseline FEV1-time curve. Ex vivo platelet aggregation to PAF was measured at 0, 2, 6, 8, and 10 h after the dose. There was marked inhibition of platelet aggregation to PAF for 10 h following UK-74,505 but not placebo (% maximum aggregation to PAF, UK-74,505, -69.9%; P, 0.13%; p = 0.0001). Histamine challenge was performed in five patients the day before and after each study day. There was no significant difference between UK-74,505 and placebo in PD20 to histamine (mean PD20 before and after UK-74,505, 1.31 and 0.96 mumol; P, 1.32 and 1.17 mumol). UK-74,505 did not affect either the EAR or the LAR to inhaled allergen or bronchial responsiveness, despite its potency and long duration of action. This suggests that PAF does not have a major role in the acute response to inhaled allergen.
Inhaled PAF provokes bronchoconstriction, causes peripheral blood neutropenia with rebound neutrophilia, and generates urinary production of the bronchoconstrictor eicosanoids, thromboxane (TX)A2, and the cysteinyl leukotrienes. We examined the effects of an oral PAF antagonist UK,74505 on each of these responses to a single 36 micrograms dose of inhaled PAF. In a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled crossover study, 12 normal male subjects inhaled PAF on two consecutive days, 3 and 24 h after intake of two doses of UK,74505 25 mg and 100 mg, or matched placebo (P). After P, inhalation of PAF provoked bronchoconstriction, measured at regular time points for 60 min as a change in sGaw from baseline and computed as area under the curve (AUC), induced a neutropenia at 5 min and rebound neutrophilia at 2 h, and stimulated production of urinary eicosanoids. Bronchoconstriction was maximal at 5 min but had receded at 1 h; (AUC mean [95% Cl]; 20.0 [13.2, 26.8] at 3 h; 11.0 [5.3, 16.6] at 24 h) and was completely abolished by both doses of UK,74505 at 3 h and by the higher 100 mg dose at 24 h. PAF-induced neutropenia and rebound neutrophilia were abolished by both doses of drug; neutropenia at 5 min (expressed as mean [95% Cl] change from baseline; -2.5 x 10(9)/L [-2.9, -2.1] after P; -0.3 [-0.7, 0.1] after 25 mg; 0.1 [-0.3, 0.4] after 100 mg), neutrophilia at 2 h (2.0 [-1.3, 2.6] after P; -0.2 [-0.8, 0.5] after 25 mg; -0.1 [-0.8, 0.5] after 100 mg).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.