Delving into the Latest Updates on Cimetropium Bromide with Synapse

Overview

Basic Info

Drug Type

Small molecule drug

Synonyms

Cimetropium bromide (JAN/INN), Alginor

Target

mAChRs

Mechanism

mAChRs antagonists(Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonists)

Therapeutic Areas

Digestive System Disorders

Active Indication

Gastrointestinal Diseases

Inactive Indication-

Originator Organization

C.H. Boehringer Sohn AG & Co. KG

Active Organization

C.H. Boehringer Sohn AG & Co. KG

Inactive Organization-

Drug Highest PhaseApproved

First Approval Date

IT (01 Jan 1984),

Gastrointestinal Diseases

Regulation-

Login to view timeline

Structure

Molecular FormulaC21H28BrNO4

InChIKeyWDURTRGFUGAJHA-GSWUYBTGSA-M

CAS Registry51598-60-8

AbstractBackgroundChinese herbal medicine (CHM) is gaining popularity in treating irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Although its efficacy was shown in recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is rarely compared with antispasmodics to confirm its effectiveness. We aimed to resolve this uncertainty through a network meta‐analysis.MethodsWe searched for RCTs that compared CHM or antispasmodics with placebo or one of them in the treatment of IBS. The primary outcomes were adequate relief of global IBS symptoms and abdominal pain. The data were pooled using a random‐effects model. The effect size measure was pooled relative risk (RR), and treatments were ranked according to their P‐scores.Key ResultsWe included 57 RCTs (n = 8869). After completion of treatment, drotaverine, individual CHM, otilonium, cimetropium, standard CHM, and pinaverium were efficacious in adequate relief of global IBS symptoms, and drotaverine ranked the first (RR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.31–4.14], P‐score =0.91); no difference was found between these treatments. After completion of treatment, drotaverine, standard CHM, pinaverium, and individual CHM were efficacious in abdominal pain, and drotaverine ranked the first (RR, 2.71 [95% CI, 1.69–4.36], P‐score =0.91); no difference was found between these treatments. Standard CHM had significantly more adverse events than placebo (RR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.12–2.94]) and other treatments.ConclusionsCHM and antispasmodics were efficacious for improvement of global IBS symptoms and abdominal pain. The adverse events of CHM were higher than antispasmodics; however, the heterogeneity of CHM formulas and the very low quality of the evidence warrants further investigation.

10 Apr 2020·Paediatrics & Child HealthQ4 · MEDICINE

Effectiveness of probiotics in infantile colic: A rapid review

Q4 · MEDICINE

Review

Author: Fraser, Lexa ; Karkhaneh, Mohammad ; Jou, Hsing ; Vohra, Sunita

AbstractBackgroundInfantile colic (IC) is a troubling condition with limited treatment options for young infants. This rapid review aims to synthesize the evidence for probiotics in the treatment and prevention of IC in healthy term infants.MethodsWe searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews (SRs), and randomized control trials (RCTs) published between January 1, 2000 and July 11, 2018. Trials were included if they recruited healthy full-term infants who received probiotics for treatment or prevention of colic. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. As supplementary information, the safety of probiotics in infants was searched within the reviewed studies and other recent publications.ResultsWe identified four SRs and meta-analyses that included six RCTs, and found an additional three RCTs evaluating probiotics for the treatment of IC. One SR and six RCTs were identified for prevention of IC; four of the RCTs were included in the SR and two were published later. The probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri was used in the majority (five of eight) of treatment trials, and was found to significantly reduce crying in colicky breast-fed infants compared to placebo. Only two of the six prevention trials showed a significant decrease in crying time compared to placebo, although another two trials showed other benefits of probiotics, including reduced use of medications (simethicone and cimetropium bromide) and physician visits. No adverse events were identified in the included studies; other research suggests probiotics are generally safe in healthy children.ConclusionThis rapid review identified limited but favourable evidence of benefit of using probiotics for the treatment of IC in full-term breast-fed infants. While routine use of probiotics for treating or preventing IC cannot yet be recommended, it can be an option to manage IC.

01 Jun 2018·MedicineQ4 · MEDICINE

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Q4 · MEDICINE

ArticleOA

Author: Jung, Peel ; Kang, Dae H. ; Hong, Joung B. ; Nam, Hyeong S. ; Ryu, Dae G. ; Kim, Su J. ; Kim, Hyung W. ; Park, Su B. ; Kim, Dong J. ; W. Choi, Cheol

BACKGROUNDEndoscopic inspection of colonic mucosa is disturbed by colonic folds and peristalsis, which may result in missed polyps. Cimetropium bromide, an antispasmodic agent, inhibits peristalsis and colonic spasms, which may improve polyp detection. The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to investigate whether cimetropium bromide could improve polyp and adenoma detection in the colorectum and right colon.METHODSPatients undergoing screening or diagnostic colonoscopy were randomized to receive intravenous cimetropium bromide (5 mg) or placebo after cecal intubation. The primary outcomes were the number of polyps per patient (PPP) and adenomas per patient (APP); secondary outcomes were the polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), and advanced neoplasm detection rate (ANDR).RESULTSA total of 181 patients were analyzed; 91 patients received cimetropium bromide and 90 patients received placebo. Cimetropium bromide and placebo groups did not significantly differ in the PPP and APP for the colorectum (1.38 ± 1.58 vs 1.69 ± 2.28, P = .298; 0.96 ± 1.27 vs 1.11 ± 1.89, P = .517, respectively) and right colon (0.70 ± 0.95 vs 0.78 ± 1.21, P = .645; 0.47 ± 0.81 vs 0.51 ± 0.81, P = .757, respectively). Two groups also did not significantly differ in the PDR, ADR, and ANDR for the colorectum and right colon. Furthermore, there were no difference between groups in the PPP, APP, PDR, ADR, and ADNR in a sub-analysis of expert and non-expert endoscopists.CONCLUSIONSCimetropium bromide did not improve polyp and adenoma detection in the colorectum and right colon during colonoscope withdrawal, regardless of the expertness of the endoscopist. However, its use may be helpful in patients with active peristalsis or for beginning endoscopists during standard colonoscopy without a transparent cap.

100 Deals associated with Cimetropium Bromide

Login to view more data

External Link

KEGG	Wiki	ATC	Drug Bank
D07099	Cimetropium Bromide	A03BB05	DBSALT001931

R&D Status

10 top approved records.

Login

to view more data

Indication	Country/Location	Organization	Date
Gastrointestinal Diseases	IT	C.H. Boehringer Sohn AG & Co. KG	01 Jan 1984

Login to view more data

Clinical Result

Indication

Phase

Evaluation

View All Results

Study	Phase	Population	Analyzed Enrollment	Group	Results	Evaluation	Publication Date


UEGW2017	Not Applicable	Polyps	-	Cimetropium bromide 5 mg	tfxybegoyw(saftvrlbvv) = utfwbutbpy dlimcuscnq (kpyuslcfhw ) View more	-	01 Oct 2017
				Placebo	tfxybegoyw(saftvrlbvv) = oetfbrovge dlimcuscnq (kpyuslcfhw ) View more
UEGW	Not Applicable	-	1,025	Cimetropium bromide	rjuhbujvmh(nsytxmomlp) = alwfvclaqs vhanwjdylk (mtfmsokohr ) View more	Positive	01 Oct 2014
				CIMETROPIUM BROMIDE (Control group)	rjuhbujvmh(nsytxmomlp) = tzdoafeacp vhanwjdylk (mtfmsokohr ) View more