4.5 Article

The phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitor udenafil lowers portal pressure in compensated preascitic liver cirrhosis. A dose-finding phase-II-study

期刊

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 144-150

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2014.10.018

关键词

Liver cirrhosis; Phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors; Portal hypertension; Portal pressure; Udenafil

资金

  1. Falk Foundation, Freiburg, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors may lower portal pressure. Aims: To investigate the effect of the phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitor udenafil on hepatic and systemic haemodynamics in liver cirrhosis. Methods: In an open-label phase-II-study, patients with liver cirrhosis Child A/B and hepatic venous pressure-gradient >= 12 mmHg received 12.5 mg/day, 25 mg/day, 50 mg/day, 75 mg/day (n=5, each), or 100 mg/day (n = 10) udenafil p.o. for one week. On days 0 and 6, hepatic venous pressure-gradient was measured prior to and one hour after drug ingestion. Endpoints were reduction of hepatic venous pressure-gradient from day 0 pre to day 6 post intake and reduction in the acute setting. Pharmacokinetics were measured in the two lowest dosage groups. Results: Combining the 75 and 100 mg/day groups hepatic venous pressure-gradient reduction after drug intake was 19.9% (p = 0.0006) on day 0. From day 0 pre-dose to day 6 post-dose hepatic venous pressure-gradient decreased by 15.7% (p = 0.040) and in 5/15 patients by >= 20% or to <12 mmHg. In the 100 mg/day group, mean arterial pressure decreased from 98.9 mmHg by 6.2 mmHg (p = 0.037) from day 0 pre-dose to day 6 post-dose. Heart rates or electrocardiograms were unchanged. Udenafil was eliminated with t(1/2) = 25 h. Conclusions: Oral application of 75-100 mg of the phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitor udenafil lowers portal pressure in the acute setting by about 20% without relevant systemic cardiovascular side effects. (C) 2014 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据