Mannitol

BackgroundPfs25 and Pvs25, surface proteins of mosquito stage of the malaria parasites P. falciparum and P. vivax, respectively, are leading candidates for vaccines preventing malaria transmission by mosquitoes. This single blinded, dose escalating, controlled Phase 1 study assessed the safety and immunogenicity of recombinant Pfs25 and Pvs25 formulated with Montanide ISA 51, a water-in-oil emulsion.Methodology/principal findingsThe trial was conducted at The Johns Hopkins Center for Immunization Research, Washington DC, USA, between May 16, 2005-April 30, 2007. The trial was designed to enroll 72 healthy male and non-pregnant female volunteers into 1 group to receive adjuvant control and 6 groups to receive escalating doses of the vaccines. Due to unexpected reactogenicity, the vaccination was halted and only 36 volunteers were enrolled into 4 groups: 3 groups of 10 volunteers each were immunized with 5 microg of Pfs25/ISA 51, 5 microg of Pvs25/ISA 51, or 20 microg of Pvs25/ISA 51, respectively. A fourth group of 6 volunteers received adjuvant control (PBS/ISA 51). Frequent local reactogenicity was observed. Systemic adverse events included two cases of erythema nodosum considered to be probably related to the combination of the antigen and the adjuvant. Significant antibody responses were detected in volunteers who completed the lowest scheduled doses of Pfs25/ISA 51. Serum anti-Pfs25 levels correlated with transmission blocking activity.Conclusion/significanceIt is feasible to induce transmission blocking immunity in humans using the Pfs25/ISA 51 vaccine, but these vaccines are unexpectedly reactogenic for further development. This is the first report that the formulation is associated with systemic adverse events including erythema nodosum.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00295581.

BackgroundAcute treatment of cerebral edema and elevated intracranial pressure is a common issue in patients with neurological injury. Practical recommendations regarding selection and monitoring of therapies for initial management of cerebral edema for optimal efficacy and safety are generally lacking. This guideline evaluates the role of hyperosmolar agents (mannitol, HTS), corticosteroids, and selected non-pharmacologic therapies in the acute treatment of cerebral edema. Clinicians must be able to select appropriate therapies for initial cerebral edema management based on available evidence while balancing efficacy and safety.MethodsThe Neurocritical Care Society recruited experts in neurocritical care, nursing, and pharmacy to create a panel in 2017. The group generated 16 clinical questions related to initial management of cerebral edema in various neurological insults using the PICO format. A research librarian executed a comprehensive literature search through July 2018. The panel screened the identified articles for inclusion related to each specific PICO question and abstracted necessary information for pertinent publications. The panel used GRADE methodology to categorize the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low based on their confidence that the findings of each publication approximate the true effect of the therapy.ResultsThe panel generated recommendations regarding initial management of cerebral edema in neurocritical care patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, traumatic brain injury, acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, bacterial meningitis, and hepatic encephalopathy.ConclusionThe available evidence suggests hyperosmolar therapy may be helpful in reducing ICP elevations or cerebral edema in patients with SAH, TBI, AIS, ICH, and HE, although neurological outcomes do not appear to be affected. Corticosteroids appear to be helpful in reducing cerebral edema in patients with bacterial meningitis, but not ICH. Differences in therapeutic response and safety may exist between HTS and mannitol. The use of these agents in these critical clinical situations merits close monitoring for adverse effects. There is a dire need for high-quality research to better inform clinicians of the best options for individualized care of patients with cerebral edema.

BackgroundInhaled mannitol is a new bronchial provocation test (BPT) developed to improve portability and standardisation of osmotic challenge testing. Osmotic challenge tests have an advantage over the traditional methods of measuring airway hyperresponsiveness using methacholine as they demonstrate higher specificity to identify asthma and thus the need for treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The safety and the efficacy of mannitol (M) as a BPT to measure airway hyperresponsiveness were compared to hypertonic (4.5%) saline (HS) in people both with and without signs and symptoms of asthma.MethodsA phase III, multi-centre, open label, operator-blinded, crossover design, randomised trial, with follow-up. Asthmatics and non-asthmatics (6-83 yr) were recruited and 592 subjects completed the study. Mannitol was delivered using a low resistance dry powder inhaler and HS was delivered using an ultrasonic nebuliser. The FEV1 was measured 60 seconds after each dose of mannitol (5,10,20,40,80,160,160,160 mg) and after each exposure to HS (0.5,1.0,2.0,4.0,8.0 minutes). A 15% fall in FEV1 defined a positive test. Adverse events were monitored and diaries kept for 7 days following the tests.ResultsMean pre-test FEV1 (mean +/- SD) was 95.5 +/- 14% predicted. 296 were positive to mannitol (M+) and 322 positive to HS (HS+). A post study physician conducted clinical assessment identified 82.3% asthmatic (44% classified mild) and 17.7% non-asthmatic. Of those M+, 70.1% were taking ICS and of those mannitol negative (M-), 81.1 % were taking ICS. The % fall in FEV1 for mannitol in asthmatics was 21.0% +/- 5.7 and for the non-asthmatics, 5.5% +/- 4.8. The median PD15 M was 148 mg and PD15 HS 6.2 ml. The sensitivity of M to identify HS+ was 80.7% and the specificity 86.7%. The sensitivity of M compared with the clinical assessment was 59.8% and specificity 95.2% and increased to 88.7% and 95.0% respectively when the M- subjects taking ICS were excluded. Cough was common during testing. There were no serious adverse events. The diarised events were similar for mannitol and HS, the most common being headache (17.2%M, 19%HS), pharyngolaryngeal pain (5.1%M, 3%HS), nausea (4.3%M, 3%HS), and cough (2.2%M, 2.4%HS).ConclusionThe efficacy and safety of mannitol was demonstrated in non-asthmatic and clinically diagnosed asthmatic adults and children.

Background/objectivesWe hypothesized that orally ingested 1,5-anhydro-D-mannitol (AM) would be absorbed from the gut but poorly metabolized, and it may have low fermentability by gut microbiota based on the breath hydrogen test.MethodsWe used a dual-model approach in this study. In animal experiments, AM was administered orally to male Wistar rats. In a randomized, three-way crossover trial (UMIN000054040), 15 healthy young adults consumed a single 5 g dose of AM, mannose, or fructooligosaccharide (FOS). Primary outcome was breath hydrogen concentrations; secondary outcomes included plasma AM, blood glucose concentration, and urinary AM excretion.ResultsAfter ingestion of 5 g AM in humans, the 14 h area under the curve for breath hydrogen excretion was markedly lower after AM than that after FOS ingestion (p ConclusionsThese findings indicate that AM is potentially a low-energy carbohydrate.