Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

P W Jungnickel

Publications and source records attributed to P W Jungnickel.

15 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Pantoprazole: a new proton pump inhibitor.

OBJECTIVE: This paper reviews the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and tolerability of pantoprazole in comparison with those of other available proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). METHODS: Relevant English-language research and review articles were identified by database searches of MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and UnCover, and by examining the reference lists of the articles so identified. In selecting data for inclusion, the author gave preference to full-length articles published in peer-reviewed journals. RESULTS: Like other PPIs, pantoprazole exerts its pharmacodynamic actions by binding to the proton pump (H+,K+ -adenosine triphosphatase) in the parietal cells, but, compared with other PPIs, its binding may be more specific for the proton pump. Pantoprazole is well absorbed when administered as an enteric-coated, delayed-release tablet, with an oral bioavailability of approximately 77%. It is hepatically metabolized via cytochrome P2C19 to hydroxypantoprazole, an inactive metabolite that subsequently undergoes sulfate conjugation. The elimination half-life ranges from 0.9 to 1.9 hours and is independent of dose. Pantoprazole has similar efficacy to other PPIs in the healing of gastric and duodenal ulcers, as well as erosive esophagitis, and as part of triple-drug regimens for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori from the gastric mucosa. It is well tolerated, with the most common adverse effects being headache, diarrhea, flatulence, and abdominal pain. In clinical studies, it has been shown to have no interactions with various other agents, including carbamazepine, cisapride, cyclosporine, digoxin, phenytoin, theophylline, and warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Pantoprazole appears to be as effective as other PPIs. Its low potential for drug interactions may give it an advantage in patients taking other drugs.

2-Pyridinylmethylsulfinylbenzimidazoles↗
PubMed1997

Effect of two aspirin pretreatment regimens on niacin-induced cutaneous reactions.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of pretreatment with two aspirin regimens and placebo on niacin-induced cutaneous reactions. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. SETTING: Internal medicine clinic in an academic health center. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two healthy subjects (22 males and 20 females) between the ages of 35 and 65 (mean age 44.2 years) were recruited and completed the study. Subjects received aspirin 325 mg, aspirin 650 mg, and placebo for 4 consecutive days, and on the fourth day also ingested 500 mg of immediate-release niacin 30 minutes after taking aspirin or placebo. They reported the intensity of flushing, headache, pruritus, tingling, and warmth on a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Reactions were evaluated at time 0 (before the niacin dose), and at 15, 30, 60, and 120 minutes following the niacin dose. Cutaneous reactions were compared at each evaluation time and scored by two other methods. The peak intensity was the highest score recorded at any of the four evaluation times after niacin administration. An intensity-time factor was calculated by totaling the scores of each of the four evaluation times. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: The symptom scores for flushing, itching, tingling, and warmth were all significantly reduced by both aspirin regimens (p < .05 in all cases), although there were no significant differences between the 325-mg and 650-mg doses. The results were similar for each scoring method. CONCLUSIONS: An aspirin regimen of 325 mg is effective in suppressing niacin-induced cutaneous reactions. Increasing the dose to 650 mg does not provide additional benefit.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Cholesterol-lowering therapy: is there really a controversy?

Geurian concludes that recommendations for the management of hypercholesterolemia are difficult to make because a previously black and white issue is becoming "increasingly gray." Actually, it appears that the opposite is occurring. Our knowledge of atherogenesis, as well as the mechanisms by which thromboembolic events occur, continues to expand. We are gaining new insights into the mechanisms by which cholesterol-lowering therapy can prevent the development of coronary events. Newer cholesterol-lowering agents are more potent than those previously available and make substantial reductions more readily achievable. Finally, we are gaining a better understanding of the relative benefits of cholesterol-lowering therapy in various patient populations, although more work is needed, particularly in women and older patients. Cholesterol-lowering therapy has had an important positive impact on CHD, particularly in preventing recurrent events and reducing mortality when used as secondary prevention. Clearly, there are substantial numbers of patients who will benefit greatly from cholesterol-lowering drugs, and clinicans should not be dissuaded from providing this valuable form of drug therapy.

Anticholesteremic Agents↗
PubMed1993

Blind comparison of patient preference for Flavored Colestid Granules and Questran Light.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensory and mixability characteristics of Flavored Colestid Granules (a new colestipol formulation) with Questran Light (the most recent cholestyramine formulation). METHODOLOGY: Seventy-two nonsmoking adults between the ages of 25 and 64 years were enrolled in the study. Subjects assessed the sensory and mixability characteristics of each product in chilled bottled water and orange juice after at least a one-hour fast. Products were administered in a double-blind, randomized fashion. The sensory characteristics that were rated included overall rating, aftertaste, appearance, aroma, color, consistency, flavor, sweetness, mouthfeel, and thickness. Each characteristic was rated with a nine-point hedonic scale. Mixability of the products was assessed on a five-point scale. Subjects also were asked to choose which product they preferred as to sensory and mixability characteristics in each vehicle. RESULTS: Fifty-three of the 72 subjects preferred the sensory characteristics of Flavored Colestid Granules in water (p < 0.001). Questran Light was preferred by 61 subjects when mixed in orange juice (p < 0.001). The sensory characteristic rating scores also supported subject preferences for Flavored Colestid Granules in water and Questran Light in orange juice. Mixability of Flavored Colestid Granules was rated significantly better (p < 0.001) than Questran Light in water. There was no significant difference for mixability between the products in orange juice. CONCLUSIONS: Questran Light was significantly preferred on a sensory basis when mixed in orange juice. Flavored Colestid Granules was significantly preferred over Questran Light for both sensory and mixability characteristics with water as the vehicle.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

Sucralfate.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Biological Availability↗
PubMed1992

Pravastatin: a new drug for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia.

The chemistry, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical trials, adverse effects, role in lipid-lowering therapy, and dosage and administration of pravastatin are reviewed. Pravastatin sodium is a new 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Its structural formula is similar to those of lovastatin and simvastatin, but it is active in the parent form. It competitively inhibits HMG-CoA reductase, reduces hepatic cellular cholesterol synthesis, increases the expression of hepatic low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptors, and reduces hepatic very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) synthesis. Pravastatin has been demonstrated to reduce cholesterol in patients with familial and nonfamilial polygenic hypercholesterolemia and patients with diabetes mellitus. In doses of 10-40 mg/day, pravastatin has been shown to reduce total cholesterol by 15-30% and LDL cholesterol by 15-40%. It also increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 2-20% and reduces triglycerides. It is generally well tolerated, with few adverse effects reported in clinical trials. Pravastatin reduces LDL cholesterol and increases HDL cholesterol comparably to lovastatin but possibly with fewer adverse effects. Further studies and clinical use will be needed to confirm potential differences in adverse effect profiles between the two drugs.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed1990

Sensory/mixability preference evaluation of cholestyramine powder formulations.

This double-blind, crossover trial compared the sensory and product preparation characteristics of two cholestyramine powder preparations. The study involved 100 healthy volunteers, aged 22-65 (mean 42 years). Questran, a currently marketed product containing sucrose as a sweetener, was compared with Questran Light, a new formulation substituting aspartame for 90 percent of the sucrose. Comparisons were conducted with the two products mixed in water and orange juice. The subjects expressed a significant overall preference for the new formulation mixed in either water (77 percent) or orange juice (80 percent) (p less than 0.01 in both comparisons). Subjects expressed an overwhelming preference for the old product (99 percent) with respect to ease of preparation, although the ratings of the new product were generally neutral rather than negative. The new product is somewhat more difficult to prepare compared with the old cholestyramine preparation, but offers significantly increased patient acceptance based on sensory evaluations.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Effect of an enteral nutrient formula on sustained-release theophylline absorption.

The effect of an enteral nutrient formula (Osmolite) on the absorption of a single oral dose of sustained-release theophylline (Slo-bid) was studied in healthy men. In a randomized, crossover design, subjects received the enteral nutrient diet (2,400 ml/day) or food diet (F) of similar caloric, fat, carbohydrate, protein, and sodium content for 7 days. On day 6 of each diet, volunteers received a single oral dose (600 mg) of sustained-release theophylline (SRT) after fasting or with hourly oral boluses (100 ml) of enteral nutrient formula (ENF). Serial blood samples were collected for 48 h and serum concentrations were analyzed by enzyme multiplied immunoassay. Slight differences (p less than 0.01; paired t test) in Cmax (7.1 +/- 1.2 versus 8.2 +/- 1.3 mg/L) and Tmax (10.7 +/- 2.4 vs. 7.1 +/- 1.1 h) were observed between the ENF and F diets, respectively. However, areas under the curve values were similar (215 +/- 72 versus 211 +/- 70 mg h/L). This study suggests that ENF does not affect the extent of absorption of SRT when administered as a single oral dose.

Adult↗
PubMed1988

Effect of sucralfate on theophylline absorption in healthy volunteers.

The effect of oral administration of sucralfate concurrently with a single oral dose of non-sustained-release theophylline was studied in eight healthy male volunteers. A two-way, randomized, cross-over study design was used. During the control phase, each subject received a single 5-mg/kg dose of a non-sustained-release theophylline product. During the treatment phase, a 1-g sucralfate tablet was ingested four times a day for two days before the theophylline dose, with the theophylline dose, and six hours after the dose. Plasma samples were collected at frequent intervals for 24 hours after theophylline dosing. Plasma theophylline concentrations, determined by high-performance liquid chromatography, were similar in the absence and presence of sucralfate. No significant differences in theophylline half-life or mean residence time between the control and treatment phases were observed. A significant decrease in the area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve was observed in the presence of sucralfate. However, the magnitude of this change was minimal and unlikely to be clinically important. In these healthy subjects, the concomitant administration of sucralfate with a single dose of non-sustained-release theophylline did not alter the rate or extent of theophylline absorption to a clinically important degree.

Adult↗
PubMed1987

Acceptability of cholestyramine or colestipol combinations with six vehicles.

Preferences for cholestyramine or colestipol in combination with orange drink, orange juice, grape juice, apple juice, water, or apple sauce were evaluated in 40 healthy adults. Each subject evaluated the taste, texture, and smell of 30-mL samples of 12 drug-vehicle combinations (two drugs, six vehicles) using modified five-point wine-tasting scales. Samples were prepared to contain either cholestyramine 1.0 g or colestipol hydrochloride 1.3 g. The products were tested at room temperature and were administered in a random order. Subjects and observers were blinded to the identity of the products. Acceptability scores for taste, texture, and smell were significantly higher for cholestyramine than for colestipol. Total mean preference scores for cholestyramine-vehicle combinations ranged from 9.9 to 11.7; for colestipol, 6.3 to 8.9. Orange drink, apple juice, grape juice, and orange juice were the preferred vehicles for cholestyramine. The preferred vehicles for colestipol were orange drink, apple sauce, and apple juice.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Evaluation of community pharmacists' experiences with cholesterol screening programs.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cholesterol screening experiences of Nebraska community pharmacists. DESIGN: A mail survey was used to assess pharmacists' experiences with and involvement in cholesterol screening and patient follow-up based on National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines. SETTING: A college of pharmacy in an academic health center. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacists-in-charge of all Nebraska community pharmacies. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' responses to survey items. RESULTS: Of 308 respondents, 83 indicated that cholesterol screenings had been held in their pharmacies. Whereas 95% felt that the screenings had been conducted appropriately, only 61% had actually monitored the screening process. Pharmacists were somewhat aware of the types of information being provided to patients being screened, although few were aware of the specific procedures used to identify high-risk patients. Eight of 80 pharmacists indicated that they obtained a list of patients who were told to contact their physicians based on their cholesterol screening results. Only 3 of 30 pharmacists responding to a question asking whether they contacted such patients to remind them to contact their physician reported actually doing so. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists were relatively uninvolved in both the screening process and the provision of information to the patients who were screened. Few pharmacists initiated-up contact with patients who were referred for physician evaluation.

Community Pharmacy Services↗