Efficacy of probiotics and trimebutine maleate for abemaciclib-induced diarrhea: A randomized, open-label phase II trial (MERMAID, WJOG11318B).

BACKGROUND: Abemaciclib-induced diarrhea (AID) impairs quality of life (QOL) and treatment adherence in patients with breast cancer. Supportive treatment with loperamide is associated with constipation. We hypothesized that probiotics and trimebutine maleate (TM) would decrease the frequency of AID without causing constipation. METHODS: Hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative advanced breast cancer patients were randomized into the probiotic Bifidobacterium (A) or probiotic Bifidobacterium and TM (B) groups. Endocrine therapy, Abemaciclib and probiotic Bifidobacterium three times a day for 28 days, was administered to both arms. Arm B was treated with TM upon the onset of diarrhea. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who experienced grade ≥2 diarrhea. The secondary endpoints were safety, frequency, and duration of all-grade diarrhea; frequency of emesis and constipation; usage of loperamide; and health-related QOL/patient-reported outcome during the study. We evaluated whether the primary endpoint of each arm exceeded the predetermined threshold. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients completed treatment. Grade 2 diarrhea occurred in 52% and 50% of patients in Arm A and Arm B, respectively. One patient experienced grade 3 diarrhea in each arm. The median duration of grade2 diarrhea was 2 and 2.5day, and only one patient required dose reduction. Grade ≥2 constipation was observed in 4% of Arm A and 3.6% of Arm B. CONCLUSIONS: Probiotic Bifidobacterium or the combination of probiotic Bifidobacterium with TM did not decrease the incidence of grade 2 or greater diarrhea compared with historical control, although the grade 3 or greater diarrhea was reduced. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: jRCT (Japan registry of clinical trials). jRCTs031190154.

[Efficacy of trimebutine in the treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders: an observational multicenter study].

AIM: Evaluation of the practice of using trimebutine (tablets, 300 mg, extended release), for the treatment of patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) in primary health care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective observational multicenter non-interventional study was carried out, which included patients of both sexes aged 18 to 60 years with a verified diagnosis of functional gastrointestinal disorders (functional dyspepsia, irritable bowel syndrome, biliary tract dysfunction, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, postcholecystectomy syndrome). Trimebutine was prescribed in accordance with the instructions for medical use: orally, 300 mg twice per day for 28 days. The severity of simptoms was evaluated by five-point rating scale. RESULTS: The study included 4433 patients, the per protocol sample consisted of 3831 people. The proportion of patients with a significant decrease in the severity of abdominal pain after treatment was 74.73% (95% confidence interval CI 73.3276.11). At the and of the study a statistically significant decrease in the severity of FGID` simptoms was observed: epigastric pain/burning (mean score at the 1st visit was 1.21 [95% CI 1.181.25], at the 2nd visit 0.22 [95% CI 0.20.23]; p0.001), abdominal pain (1st visit 2.01 [95% CI 1.982.04), 2nd visit 0.33 [95% CI 0.310.35]; p0.001), biliary pain (1st visit 1.22 [95% CI 1.181.26], 2nd visit 0.2 [95% CI 0.190.22]; p0.001), postprandial fullness and early satiation (1st visit 1.29 [95% CI 1.251.32], 2nd visit 0.21 [95% CI 0.190.22]; p0.001), severity of heartburn (1st visit 0.92 [95% CI 0.880.95], 2nd visit 0.18 [95% CI 0.170.20]; p0.001), belching (1st visit 1.13 [95% CI 1.091.16], 2nd visit 0.22 [95% CI 0.210.24]; p0.001), as well as abdominal distention (1st visit 1.99 (95% CI 1, 96, 2.03), 2nd visit 0.43 [95% CI 0.410.45]; p0.001). CONCLUSION: The present prospective observational multicenter non-interventional study has demonstrated that trimebutine is an effective approach to treating FGID.

Trimebutine: abuse, addiction and overdose.

Trimebutine, an antispasmodic drug, is used to relieve pain associated with irritable bowel syndrome, despite a lack of proven efficacy. Trimebutine has been shown to act on peripheral opioid receptors. Cases of trimebutine abuse and addiction have been reported in young adults, especially with the injectable form. Cases of serious accidental or intentional trimebutine overdose have been reported in infants and young adults, leading to neurological disorders (loss of consciousness, coma, drowsiness and convulsions) and cardiac disorders (bradycardia, ventricular tachycardia, arterial hypertension). Time to symptom onset was less than 3 hours after trimebutine intake. In practice, trimebutine is by no means a harmless drug, contrary to the impression given by the limited safety data available. Patients with pain due to irritable bowel syndrome should be informed of the adverse effects of trimebutine, and the harm-benefit balance should be reassessed in patients already taking this drug.

A case of trimebutine-induced anaphylaxis.

Trimebutine maleate [2-dimethylamino-2-phenylbutyl 3,4,5-trimethoxybenzoic acid] has been demonstrated to be active for relieving abdominal pain and it is widely used for patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Adverse drug reactions are mostly mild and well-tolerated. To our knowledge, only two cases of trimebutine induced hypersensitivity have been reported, and both were delayed type reactions. Here, we report the first case of trimebutine maleate-induced anaphylaxis.

Comparação entre o sumatriptano, a trimebutina, o meloxicam e a associação dos três fármacos no tratamento agudo de enxaqueca / Comparison among sumatriptane, trimebutine, meloxicam and the association of those drugs in the acute treatment of migraine

JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: A crise aguda de migrânea geralmente leva a grande incapacidade econômica e social para aqueles que sofrem deste transtorno. A fisiopatologia é complexa e envolve múltiplos mecanismos centrais e periféricos. O tratamento agudo tem como objetivo aliviar a dor e os fenômenos associados como a náusea e fotofobia, sem causar efeitos adversos importantes. Apesar do desenvolvimento de fármacos específicos como os triptanos, para o tratamento agudo, a sua eficácia ainda é baixa. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a eficácia e a tolerância da trimebutina, meloxicam, sumatriptano e a associação dos três fármacos no tratamento das crises agudas de migrânea de moderada a forte intensidade.MÉTODO: Após aprovação pelo Comitê de Ética das Instituições foram incluídos neste estudo prospectivo, duplamente encoberto e aleatório, 50 pacientes, sendo 43 mulheres e 7 homens, com idade entre 18 e 65 anos, portadores de migrânea com ou sem aura, que utilizavam medicação profilática, exceto anti-inflamatórios não esteroides (AINES). Foram tratadas quatro crises de migrânea de moderada a forte intensidade de cada paciente, com 200 mg de trimebutina, 50 mg de sumatriptano, 15 mg de meloxicam ou com a associação de 200 mg de trimebutina, 50 mg de sumatriptano e 15 mg de meloxicam. Os pacientes foram aleatorizados em 4 grupos de acordo com a ordem de chegada, de modo que o primeiro paciente incluído recebeu trimebutina para a primeira crise, sumatriptano para a segunda crise, meloxicam para a terceira crise e a associação entre os 3 fármacos para a quarta crise. O segundo paciente incluído recebeu sumatriptano para a primeira crise, meloxicam para a segunda superior a cada um desses fármacos isolados para controlar a dor, as náuseas e a fotofobia nas crises agudas de migrânea de moderada a forte intensidade. Além disso, a combinação dos fármacos apresentou maior incidência de efeitos adversos.crise, a associação para a terceira crise e a trimebutina para a quarta crise, e assim sucessivamente. A intensidade da crise de migrânea foi avaliada a partir da ingestão da cápsula com escala categorizada verbal na qual: 0 - sem dor, 1 - cefaleia leve, 2 - cefaleia moderada e 3 - cefaleia intensa. Cada paciente foi orientado para preencher o relatório de crise para cada crise tratada, na qual anotava a intensidade da cefaleia, a presença de náusea, fotofobia e dos efeitos adversos, e o uso da medicação de resgate, 100 mg de indometacina por via retal. RESULTADOS: Completaram o estudo 42 pacientes. Em uma hora 9,5% dos pacientes que utilizaram a associação dos fármacos estavam livres da dor, comparados com 14,2% com a trimebutina e sumatriptano e 2,4% com o meloxicam (p = 0,479). Em duas horas 21,4% dos pacientes que usaram a associação estavam livres da dor, comparados com 11,9% com a trimebutina, 26,1% com sumatriptano e 23,8% com o meloxicam (p = 0,555). Tanto a associação trimebutina, sumatriptano e meloxicam como os fármacos trimebutina, sumatriptano e meloxicam isolados foram efetivos para controlar a náusea e fotofobia após 1 e 2h para náusea (p = 0,157 e 0,587) e fotofobia (p = 0,671 e 0,929, embora sem diferença estatisticamente significativa entre eles. Dez pacientes em uso da associação dos fármacos, 6 em uso da trimebutina, 5 em uso do sumatriptano e 5 em uso do meloxicam relataram efeitos colaterais. CONCLUSÃO: Este estudo demonstrou que a associação sumatriptano, meloxicam e trimebutina não foi superior a cada um desses fármacos isolados para controlar a dor, as náuseas e a fotofobia nas crises agudas de migrânea de moderada a forte intensidade. Além disso, a combinação dos fármacos apresentou maior incidência de efeitos adversos.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Acute migraine crisis often leads to major economic and social disability for those suffering from such syndrome. Pathophysiology is complex involving several central and peripheral mechanisms. The acute treatment aims at evaluating pain and associated phenomena, such as nausea and photophobia, without causing major adverse effects. Notwithstanding the development of specific drugs for the acute treatment, such as triptanes, their efficacy is still low. This study aimed at comparing efficacy and tolerance of trimebutine, meloxicam, sumatriptane and the association of such drugs to treat moderate to severe acute migraine crises.METHOD: After the Institutions? Ethics Committee approval, participated in this prospective, double-blind and randomized study 50 patients, being 43 females and 7 males, aged between 18 and 65 years, with migraine with or without aura, under prophylactic medication, except non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS). Patients were treated for 4 moderate to severe migraine crises with 200 mg trimebutine, 50 mg sumatriptane, 15 mg meloxicam, or with the association of 200 mg trimebutine, 50 mg sumatriptane and 15 mg meloxicam. Patients were randomized in 4 groups according to their arrival, so that the first patient included received trimebutine for the first crisis, sumatriptane for the second crisis, meloxicam for the third crisis and the association of the three drugs for the fourth crisis. The second patient included received sumatriptane for the first crisis, meloxicam for the second crisis, the association for the third crisis and trimebutine for the fourth crisis, and so on and so forth. Migraine crisis intensity was evaluated as from the ingestion of the first tablet with verbal categorized scale where: 0 = no pain, 1 = mild headache, 2 = moderate headache, 3 = severe headache. All patients were oriented to fill a crisis report for each treated crisis, where they would record headache intensity, presence of nausea, photophobia and adverse effects and the use of rescue medication, 100 mg of rectal indometacin.RESULTS: Forty-two patients completed the study. In one hour 9.5% of patients using the association of drugs were free of pain, as compared to 14.2% with trimebutine and sumatriptane and 2.4% with meloxicam (p = 0.479). In two hours 21.4% of patients using the association were free of pain, as compared to 11.9% with trimebutine, 26.1% with sumatriptane and 23.6% with meloxicam (p = 0.555). Both the association of trimebutine, sumatriptane and meloxicam and trimebutine, sumatriptane and meloxicam alone were effective to control nausea and photophobia after 1 and 2 h for nausea (p = 0.157 and 0.587) and photophobia (p = 0.671 and 0.929) although without statistically significant difference among them. Ten patients under the association of drugs, 6 under trimebutine, 5 under sumatriptane and 5 under meloxicam have reported side effects. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that the association of sumatriptane, meloxicam and trimebutine was not better than each of those drugs alone to control pain, nausea and photophobia during moderate to severe migraine crises. In addition, the combination of drugs has shown a higher incidence of adverse effects.

[A randomized and case-control clinical study on trimebutine maleate in treating functional dyspepsia coexisting with diarrhea-dominant irritable bowel syndrome].

OBJECTIVE: To observe the efficacy and adverse drug reaction of trimebutine maleate in treating patients with functional dyspepsia (FD) coexisting with diarrhea dominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D). METHODS: 129 patients were enrolled in this randomized, case-control and prospective study and divided into 3 groups. Group A was treated with trimebutine maleate and bacillus licheniformis, Group B with trimebutine maleate and Group C with bacillus licheniformis. The symptoms of the patients were described with grading score and efficacy of treatment assessed according to the changes of grading score of symptoms. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in the scores of postprandial fullness (4.55 +/- 0.85, 1.26 +/- 0.52; 4.36 +/- 0.66, 1.48 +/- 0.61), early satiation (4.05 +/- 0.96, 1.01 +/- 0.51; 3.89 +/- 0.81, 1.25 +/- 0.76), abdominal pain (9.26 +/- 0.68, 0.68 +/- 0.43; 9.57 +/- 1.60, 0.76 +/- 0.54) and total symptom score (20.00 +/- 1.25, 3.06 +/- 0.91; 19.05 +/- 2.28, 3.89 +/- 2.12) before and after treatment in Group A and B (P < 0.05), but there was no such significance in Group C (P > 0.05). There was a significant decrease in diarrhea score before and after treatment in the 3 groups (A: 4.78 +/- 0.76, 0.65 +/- 0.53; B: 4.13 +/- 0.65, 1.25 +/- 0.62; C: 4.65 +/- 0.88, 1.45 +/- 0.70) (P < 0.05). After treatment for 4 weeks, there was significant difference in the scores of postprandial fullness, early satiation, abdominal pain and total symptom score as well as the effective rate of every symptom and total effective rate between Group A or B and Group C (P < 0.05). The ratio of cost and effect was 4.07, 1.19 and 6.65 in Group A, B and C respectively, the Group B being the best. The rate of adverse drug reaction was 22.9% and 23.7% in Group A and B, and the main adverse drug reactions were mild thirst and constipation. CONCLUSIONS: In treating patients with functional dyspepsia coexisting with diarrhea dominant irritable bowel syndrome, trimebutine maleate has the advantage of high efficacy, low cost and few adverse reactions.

Rizatriptan vs. rizatriptan plus trimebutine for the acute treatment of migraine: a double-blind, randomized, cross-over, placebo-controlled study.

Gastroparesis frequently happens during migraine attacks, postponing the onset of action of orally administered drugs. Furthermore, triptans seem to work better in the earlier phases of the migraine attacks. Therefore, associating a gastrokinetic drug with a triptan may translate into better efficacy and higher consistency of response. Trimebutine is an opioid derivative with exclusive action on receptors of the Meissner and Auerbach plexus throughout the digestive tube. It has no absorption or central penetration. Herein we contrast the combination of rizatriptan plus trimebutine with rizatriptan alone in the acute treatment of migraine. Forty patients with migraine consecutively seen in our clinic were randomized to treat two consecutive moderate or severe attacks with one tablet of 10 mg rizatriptan plus one capsule of 200 mg trimebutine and two attacks with the same triptan and placebo, in counterbalanced order. We collected information on the severity of the attack, as well as presence of nausea and photophobia at the time of drug intake, and after 1, 2 and 4 h. Recurrence and adverse events were also contrasted. Sixty-four attacks were treated with each drug regimen. At 1 h postdose, 30 (46.8%) of 64 attacks treated with the combination resolved completely, vs. eight (12.5%) of the rizatriptan-treated attacks, a difference of 34% (P < 0.01). At 2 h postdose, 47 (73.4%) attacks treated with the combination vs. 20 (31.2%) of those treated with rizatriptan alone resolved completely, a difference of 42% (95% confidence interval 26, 58, P < 0.001). Regarding nausea and photophobia, the combination was also associated with significantly better response. Recurrence was similar among the two drug regimens, as well as adverse events. The combination rizatriptan and trimebutine is more effective than rizatriptan alone. The combination does not increase adverse events or recurrence of pain.

Establishing a comprehensive questionnaire for detecting drug-induced extrapyramidal symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Drug-induced extrapyramidal symptoms (DIEPS) often substantially compromise quality of life (QOL) of patients receiving drugs with central antidopaminergic activities. A lack of comprehensive screening method based upon patients' subjective symptoms for detecting DIEPS appears to have prevented pharmacists from delivering satisfactory pharmaceutical care for these patients. Thus, we have attempted to develop a comprehensive questionnaire for screening patients having higher risks of developing DIEPS. METHODS: One hundred fourteen outpatients taking gastroprokinetic drugs (itopride, cisapride, trimebutine, domperidone and metoclopramide) at least 2 weeks participated in the study. One patient with familial Parkinson disease served as a positive reference. They undertook a questionnaire consisting of 9 comprehensive questions written in non-technical words that were aimed to detect typical symptoms of Parkinsonism including akathisia and dyskinesia. Each symptom was scored in a semiquantitative scale [i.e., from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much)] by the patients. RESULTS: Of the 108 subjects who successfully completed the questionnaires, 43 gave scores 2 or greater indicating the presence of DIEPS. However, no statistically significant correlations were observed between the scores of any possible pairs of the questionnaire items. Five subjects had a mean questionnaire score of equal to or greater than 1.6, and the patient with familiar Parkinsonism had the highest mean score of 1.9. CONCLUSION: The questionnaire presented herein detected 4 patients with suspected DIEPS. Further studies should be warranted to assess whether it would be useful for pharmacists as a screening tool for DIEPS in patients having higher risks of DIEPS.

Preparation, characterization and taste-masking properties of polyvinylacetal diethylaminoacetate microspheres containing trimebutine.

The objectives of this study were to produce acid soluble, polyvinylacetal diethylaminoacetate (AEA) microspheres containing trimebutine (as maleate), using a water-in-oil-in-water (w/o/w) emulsion solvent evaporation method, to characterize their in-vitro release properties, and to evaluate the taste-masking potential of this formulation in human volunteers. The pH of the external aqueous phase was the critical factor in achieving a high loading efficiency for trimebutine in the microencapsulation process; nearly 90% (w/w) loading efficiency was obtained at above pH 10. Trimebutine was completely released from AEA microspheres within 10 min in a dissolution test at pH 1.2, simulating conditions in the stomach, whereas at pH 6.8, the pH in the mouth, only small quantities of trimebutine were released in the initial 1-2 min. The results of a gustatory sensation test in healthy volunteers confirmed the taste-masking effects of the AEA microspheres. Finally, an attempt was made to encapsulate the salts of other basic drugs (lidocaine, imipramine, desipramine, amitriptyline, promethazine and chlorpheniramine) into AEA microspheres using the w/o/w emulsion evaporation method. The loading efficiencies were ranked in almost inverse proportion with the solubility of the drugs in the external aqueous phase. This study demonstrated the possibility of masking the taste of salts of basic drugs by microencapsulation with AEA using a w/o/w emulsion solvent evaporation method.

Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of two trimebutine formulations in healthy volunteers using desmethyl-trimebutine levels.

Trimebutine tablets (dimethylamino-2-phenyl-2-n-butyl-3,4,5- trimethoxybenzoate maleate, CAS 34140-59-5, reference) and a new tablet formulation (Eurogalena, test) were administered in 24 healthy volunteers of both sexes according to a cross-over design, in a single dose of one 100 mg tablet of each formulation. Blood samples were drawn off over a 24-h period, before (time 0) and after each administration at specific intervals. Trimebutine and its main active metabolite, desmethyl-trimebutine, were measured in plasma using a validated HPLC method with UV detection. For both compounds, the sensitivity was 20 ng.ml-1 and the analytical method was proved to be linear for concentrations between 20 ng.ml-1 and 5000 ng.ml-1, with a variability less than 11%. The non-compartmental method was used for pharmacokinetic analysis. The confidence interval approach was used for comparison of the formulations according to the EU guidance note on bioavailability and bioequivalence on Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-infinity, log transformed. Tmax values were statistically compared using the Friedman non-parametric test. No trimebutine concentration was measured in the plasma samples. The obtained data with desmethyl-trimebutine proved the bioequivalence of the two tested formulations.

Fenoverine: a two-step, double-blind and open clinical assessments of its smooth muscle synchronizing effects.

A clinical trial on fenoverine was performed in two parts, one double-blind and one open. In the double-blind segment, 69 patients with chronic gastro-intestinal spasmodic conditions were allocated, according to a pre-set randomization table, to receive orally 3 daily doses of fenoverine (100 mg; 35 patients), trimebutine (150 mg; 14 patients) or placebo (20 patients) during an average of 8 days. In the open assay, 60 similar patients were treated during an average of 10 days with 100 mg fenoverine, orally, 3-times daily. Clinical efficacy was evaluated on the grounds of complete or almost complete remission of all symptoms and signs associated with the spasmodic condition. In the double-blind segment, 66% of patients given fenoverine experienced remission, a significantly higher proportion than those who had placebo (40%). The results with trimebutine (71%) could not be statistically differentiated from those of either fenoverine or placebo. In the open segment, 72% of patients experienced remission with fenoverine, thus showing an overall effectiveness in 70% of the total 95 patients who had such treatment. In neither study could a significant influence of spasm localization be shown on the clinical efficacy of fenoverine. Fenoverine also exerted an unexpected, though clinically interesting, anti-emetic action: of the 14 patients reporting vomiting on entry, 12 (86%) responded positively to fenoverine, whereas none responded out of the 3 who had placebo. Possible side-reactions were limited with fenoverine: there were only 17 (18%) complaints, mainly dry mouth, of which 6 were very mild.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Fenoverine: smooth muscle synchronizer for the management of gastro-intestinal conditions. II. A trimebutine-controlled, double-blind, crossover clinical evaluation.

A double-blind, crossover trial was carried out in 40 in-patients with gastro-intestinal spasmodic syndromes to compare the effectiveness and tolerance of fenoverine and trimebutine. Patients were allocated at random to receive either 100 mg fenoverine or 150 mg trimebutine 3-times daily for 20 days and were then crossed over, without a wash-out period, to the alternative medication for a further 20 days. After the first dose, pain severity was monitored over 4 hours and changes in intensity compared between groups. During the two 20-day periods, the proportion of patients in complete or almost complete remission was monitored at 10-day intervals, and the pooled data similarly compared. At the end of the 40-day trial period, patients stated their preference for one or other treatment, and the relevant data were processed by sequential analysis. Subjective signs of adverse effects were monitored by questioning every 10 days, and haematology and haematochemistry before and after each phase of the study. The results showed that fenoverine produced significantly greater pain relief after a single dose in comparison with trimebutine over the 4 hours of observation. Similarly, it gave significantly more favourable clinical results after both the 10th and 20th day of treatment. Finally, according to the patients' preference, fenoverine was significantly preferred (p less than 0.05) in comparison with trimebutine. Neither treatment was associated with the onset of signs of possible adverse reactions, either subjective or objective.

A three-part controlled study of trimebutine in the treatment of irritable colon syndrome.

Three controlled trials were carried out in patients with irritable bowel syndrome to assess the effectiveness of trimebutine in controlling the symptoms of abdominal distension, pain, flatulence, constipation, diarrhoea and dyspepsia. In the first two trials, it was shown that 200 mg trimebutine 3-times daily for 3 days produced rapid relief of symptoms and was significantly (p less than 0.001) more effective than placebo, but not significantly so when the dosage level was halved. In the third trial, the results showed that 200 mg trimebutine 3-times daily for 2 weeks was as effective as 100 mg mebeverine 4-times daily in relieving the major symptoms and in improving motility. No serious side-effects were reported with trimebutine at the dosage used.