RESUMO
Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and H2 blockers are commonly prescribed medications to treat ulcers in the stomach and the upper part of the small intestine and prescribed for some other common gastrointestinal complications such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, esophagitis, irritable bowel syndrome, and dyspepsia. Previous studies claimed that, apart from other side effects, these anti-ulcerant therapies significantly altered bone mineral density by interfering with intestinal reabsorption of minerals and vitamin B12, and the most widely prescribed PPIs were significantly associated with increased risks of hip and spine fractures. However, the potential skeletal side effects of these antiulcerants are unknown in Bangladesh. Methods: To examine safety concerns of anti-ulcer therapies and their impact on musculoskeletal health among patients in Bangladesh, the present work surveyed 200 patients in five different hospitals from December 2019 to February 2020. Results: The current study revealed that most respondents (95 %) received PPIs for gastrointestinal indications while the rest were taking H2 receptor antagonists for their gastric ailments. Most patients taking PPIs alone (> 3 years; 95 % of respondents) claimed some unusual musculoskeletal side effects, such as weakness, flank pain, spasm of hands and feet, muscle aches, numbness, and tremor. About 61 % of patients taking PPIs experienced low back pain whereas the respondents with neck pain and knee joint pain were 10 % and 7 %, respectively. However, few osteopenia and osteoporotic incidences have been also recorded. Although further studies are required to confirm the impact of these antiulcerants on the bone, these patient responses suggest that these musculoskeletal side effects might have some links with altered bone metabolism. Conclusions: It is possible that anti-ulcerant therapies may worsen the bone metabolism of patients suffering from osteoporosis or other bone disorders, and awareness and precautions should be raised among the patients and clinicians for the careful administration of PPIs to patients suffering from bone disorders.
RESUMO
Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM), along with its associated complications, including diabetic neuropathy and hyperlipidemia, has become a global concern in the last few decades. The main objective of our study is to evaluate the comparative neuro-safety status, serum plasma glucose, and lipid-lowering potential of two widely recognized antidiabetic drugs named metformin and glimepiride. Methods: The neurological evaluation was done by open field test, hole board test, forced swimming test, dark and lighthouse test, and elevated plus maze test by employing diazepam as standard. Serum blood glucose level of streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic mice was determined by glucose oxidizing method using a glucometer. Total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C) levels were estimated by using the reference method where atorvastatin was used as standard. Results: In neurological evaluation, both drugs produce almost the same anxiolytic activity in the open field test, hole board test, light and dark house test, and elevated plus maze test. However, in the forced swimming test, glimepiride produced more antidepressant activity than metformin. Glimepiride was found to remarkably reduce serum glucose and VLDL-C levels more than metformin, whereas, for other parameters, metformin takes over glimepiride sometimes took over the standard atorvastatin. Conclusions: The results of our study indicate that both oral hypoglycaemic drugs alter the lipid index while producing some anxiolytic effects on the central nervous system. Thus, recommended to be carefully administered to patients with low BMI and might be beneficial to patients suffering from peripheral nerve function and anxiety.
