• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

NAC breaks down BBB, increases Amyloid and Microbleeds in Stroke-Prone Rats

nac bbb amyloid microbleeds

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 ta5

  • Guest
  • 952 posts
  • 324
  • Location: 

Posted 10 July 2015 - 03:59 PM


I had not seen this posted before.

These are genetically messed up rats, so hopefully this does not apply to humans. But, if it could, this is really bad. 


J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;42 Suppl 3:S305-13.
Impact of N-Acetylcysteine on cerebral amyloid-β plaques and kidney damage in spontaneously hypertensive stroke-prone rats.
Bueche CZ1, Garz C2, Stanaszek L1, Niklass S2, et al.
BACKGROUND:
Cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) in spontaneously hypertensive stroke prone rats (SHRSP) is accompanied by parenchymal amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition in the brain and by hypertensive nephropathy with tubulointerstitial damage. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) promotes blood-brain barrier (BBB) breakdown in SHRSP and may thus accelerate the failure of vascular and perivascular clearance of Aβ.
OBJECTIVE:
In this study, we test the hypothesis that treatment with NAC increases the cerebral Aβ load and improves renal damage in the SHRSP model.
METHODS:
A total of 46 SHRSP (ages 18-44 weeks) were treated daily with NAC (12 mg/kg body weight) and 74 no-treated age-matched SHRSP served as controls. The prevalence of parenchymal Aβ load, IgG positive small vessels, and small perivascular bleeds was assessed in different brain regions. Tubulointerstitial kidney damage was assessed through a) the presence of erythrocytes in peritubular capillaries and b) tubular protein cylinders.
RESULTS:
SHRSP treated with NAC had an age-dependent increase of BBB breakdown (assessed by the presence of IgG positive small vessels) and small perivascular bleeds, mainly in the cortex. NAC significantly increased the Aβ plaque load in the cortex while the number of parenchymal amyloid deposits in the remaining brain areas including basal ganglia, hippocampus, thalamus, and corpus callosum were unchanged. There were no significant treatment effects on tubulointerstitial kidney damage.
CONCLUSION:
The impact of NAC on cerebral cortical plaque load increase may result from the vascular pathology of SHRSP that accompanies BBB breakdown, leading to the failure of amyloid clearance mechanisms. It remains to be seen whether in humans chronic NAC intake may increase amyloid load in the aging human brain and dementia.
KEYWORDS:
Amyloid-β; N-acetylcysteine rats; cerebral small vessel disease; hypertensive nephropathy; spontaneously hypertensive stroke prone rats (SHRSP)
PMID: 24898644

 

 
Exp Transl Stroke Med. 2013 Apr 15;5:5.
NAC changes the course of cerebral small vessel disease in SHRSP and reveals new insights for the meaning of stases - a randomized controlled study.
Bueche CZ1, Garz C1, Kropf S2, Bittner D3, et al.
BACKGROUND:
N-Acetylcystein (NAC) reduces the reperfusion injury and infarct size in experimental macroangiopathic stroke. Here we now investigate the impact of NAC on the development of the histopathology of microangiopathic cerebrovascular disease including initial intravasal erythrocyte accumulations, blood-brain-barrier (BBB)-disturbances, microbleeds and infarcts.
METHODS:
Spontaneously Hypertensive Stroke-Prone Rats (SHRSP) were treated with NAC (12 mg/kg body weight, daily oral application for three to 30 weeks) and compared to untreated SHRSP. In all rats the number of microbleeds, thromboses, infarcts and stases were quantified by HE-staining. Exemplary brains were stained against von Willebrand factor (vWF), IgG, Glutathione and GFAP.
RESULTS:
NAC animals exhibited significant more microbleeds, a greater number of vessels with BBB-disturbances, but also an elevation of Glutathione-levels in astrocytes surrounding small vessels. NAC-treatment reduced the numbers of thromboses, infarcts and arteriolar stases.
CONCLUSIONS:
NAC reduces the frequency of thromboses and infarcts to the expense of an increase of small microbleeds in a rat model of microangiopathic cerebrovascular disease. We suppose that NAC acts via an at least partial inactivation of vWF resulting in an insufficient sealing of initial endothelial injury leading to more small microbleeds. By elevating Glutathione-levels NAC most likely exerts a radical scavenger function and protects small vessels against extended ruptures and subsequent infarcts. Finally, it reveals that stases are mainly caused by endothelial injuries and restricted thromboses.
KEYWORDS:
Animal model; Blood–brain barrier; Cerebral microbleed; Cerebral small vessel disease; von Willebrand factor
PMID: 23587288


  • Informative x 6
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2 Supierce

  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 28
  • Location:Vermont

Posted 10 July 2015 - 10:12 PM

ta5, thank you for your post. That first study is scary enough that I'm stopping NAC until we learn more. Better safe than sorry.
  • Agree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 cuprous

  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Boston

Posted 11 July 2015 - 05:44 PM

Wow.. this is the first legitimately concerning research I've seen regarding NAC outside of the PAH studies.

 

Hoping one of our scientists can chime in here on likelihood of this affecting humans.  The human-equivalent dose here is only ~120mg for a 60kg person.. something I surpass by an order of magnitude when I take 1,200mg before a night out on the town.  Yikes.


  • Agree x 1

#4 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 11 July 2015 - 07:49 PM

Finally, vindication.



#5 APBT

  • Guest
  • 906 posts
  • 389

Posted 12 July 2015 - 03:38 PM

Here's the full text of the second study: http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3661381/


  • like x 1

#6 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,840 posts
  • 721
  • Location:Austria

Posted 12 July 2015 - 05:13 PM

Finally, vindication.

 

Well, if I learned only one thing on longecity, then it would be that if animal studies would prove any thesis in humans, then smoking tobacco could be considered a healthy life-style.
 


  • Good Point x 2
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Cheerful x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#7 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 12 July 2015 - 05:35 PM

 

Finally, vindication.

 

Well, if I learned only one thing on longecity, then it would be that if animal studies would prove any thesis in humans, then smoking tobacco could be considered a healthy life-style.

 

Mmmm.  Could you please post references to the health benefits of smoking in animals? 
 



#8 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,840 posts
  • 721
  • Location:Austria

Posted 12 July 2015 - 05:52 PM

Mmmm.  Could you please post references to the health benefits of smoking in animals?

 

Don't want to derail this topic too much. But in this post find a selection:

 

http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=564686



#9 Darryl

  • Guest
  • 650 posts
  • 657
  • Location:New Orleans
  • NO

Posted 12 July 2015 - 06:11 PM

Some background.

 

Von Willebrand factor

Monomers are subsequently N-glycosylated, arranged into dimers in the endoplasmic reticulum and into multimers in the Golgi apparatus by crosslinking of cysteine residues via disulfide bonds...Multimers of vWF can be extremely large, >20,000 kDa, and consist of over 80 subunits of 250 kDa each. Only the large multimers are functional. Some cleavage products that result from vWF production are also secreted but probably serve no function.

 

Samuni Y et al 2013. The chemistry and biological activities of N-acetylcysteineBiochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-General Subjects1830(8), 4117-4129.

NAC is a stronger reducing agent than GSH, cysteine and cysteamine, e.g., the redox potential of NAC thiol–disulfide pair is higher by 63 mV and 106 mV than those of GSH/GSSG and cysteine/cystine redox pairs, respectively...Hence, NAC can reduce disulfide bonds in proteins thus disrupting their ligand bonding and altering their structures. The latter can rationalize the mucolytic activity of NAC, which can reduce the disulfide bonds in cross-linked mucous proteins. Other examples associated with protein modification induced by NAC include: decrease in the angiotensin II receptor binding in vascular smooth muscle cells; blocking tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-induced signaling by lowering the cytokine affinity to the receptor; reducing ligand binding capacity of betaglycan; increasing c-Src cysteine reduced thiol content in cells, which primed the shift of the enzyme from the membrane into perinuclear endolysosomes; and modifying the redox state of functional membrane proteins with exofacial SH critical for their activity. The thiolate basicity in GSH is approximately the same as that of typical thiolates in peptides and proteins. Consequently, a strong disulfide-reducing and concomitant mucolytic activity of glutathione is not anticipated.

 

 

It appears the problem is not increased cysteine availability, but free NAC that escaped N-deacetylation. 

 

 


Edited by Darryl, 12 July 2015 - 06:12 PM.

  • Informative x 3
  • like x 2

#10 Chris Edited

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 2
  • Location:NH,U.S.A

Posted 13 July 2015 - 04:00 AM

Sounds  like it;d be safer to eat an extra avocado a day to boost glutathione .

 

I had actually just ordered a bottle of dr's best NAC  before finding this thread.

 

Amazon  refunded my purchase without requiring the  bottle back which arrived yesterday...

 

 I think I understand wht's being stated in these studies but its also for me not  immendiately possible to know where I fall in relation to  the physiology of the test subjects which  displayed these adverse effects from NAC

 

 I'd be presumptuous to conclude  I have no such cerbrovasuclar weaknesses and am thus safe to use normal doses for  Glutathione  prodcution.

 

Even if I am genetically well into the safe zone as far as that kind of condition goes I am now 52 and so have to consider age .

 

I won;t be  opening the bottle of NAC caps just yet..

 

 The best thing I noticed from taking it in the past was when I'd have a beer after taking some along with Milk This extract (PharmaGold)  I would have no lingering aftereffects the next morning which was really welcome...


  • like x 1

#11 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 13 July 2015 - 03:54 PM

 

Finally, vindication.

 

Well, if I learned only one thing on longecity, then it would be that if animal studies would prove any thesis in humans, then smoking tobacco could be considered a healthy life-style.
 

 

 

What I learned from Longecity is that people still haven't figured out to be careful of their sources of information.

 

In any case, there is a slowly growing body of evidence that there is a dark side to NAC.  No one disputing that under certain circumstances NAC is a fantastic antidote.  As I've said before, it's well-documented that NAC can save a life in an emergency, but this alone does not necessarily translate into "chronic use won't do any harm in healthy people."

 

The large group of people who have nasty reactions to NAC in hospitals has been known to the medical community for a while, but only recently has someone decided to fund studies about it.

 

It seems clear that NAC causes systemic histamine release.  Quite a few people have issues with it, even if they have no history of allergies.  Histamine intolerance is underdiagnosed (because it has a wide range of symptoms that are mild to severe and all over the map making the cause more difficult to pinpoint)  and understudied.  

 

At the smaller, chronic doses people might take as supplements (as opposed to the larger therapeutic doses for poisoning), we don't know the extent of the effects of the histamine.  But who is betting that it's either beneficial or has no effect at all, even in people who don't have mild histamine intolerance (and don't know that they do)?

 

(In case some moron jumps the gun, anaphylactoid means nonallergic reaction symptomatically similar to allergic reaction.)

 

 

 

This is an ongoing investigation  that's progressed a bit since I last look at this page:

 

https://clinicaltria...how/NCT01209455

 

 Purpose

Paracetamol overdose is the leading cause of acute liver failure in the Western World. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has been the antidote of choice for over 30 years but its use is associated with adverse effects in 40% of cases. Patients characteristically experience nausea, vomiting and an anaphylactoid ('pseudo-allergic') syndrome. This reaction is clinically similar to true anaphylaxis (allergic reaction) including flushing, rash, constriction of airways, and a fall in blood pressure, but occurs via a different mechanism. Although treatable, these reactions lead to patient distress, commonly cause confusion among treating physicians, and lead to significant delays in antidote administration. The aetiology of these adverse reactions to NAC remains unclear. We hypothesise: i) these reactions result from a dose-dependent release of the chemical histamine, causing dilatation of blood vessels (vasodilatation) and the anaphylactoid syndrome; ii) paracetamol conversely exerts a protective effect on the reaction, with a less severe reaction observed in the presence of higher paracetamol concentrations. We will investigate the mechanisms underlying adverse reactions to NAC in the human forearm model, examining the role of histamine and other markers involved in the inflammatory process. The wider significance is an improved understanding of this poorly delineated phenomenon, with implications for other medications associated with similar reactions, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids such as morphine.

 

__________________________

 

 

[This 2002 case report on one fatality might have been the catalyst that triggered interest in figuring out the almost paradoxical effect NAC has on histamine release]

 

http://emj.bmj.com/c...6/594.full.html

 

Abstract

Paracetamol overdose is a common reason for presentation to the emergency department and N-acetylcysteine is frequently used in the treatment of toxic paracetamol ingestions. Adverse reactions to N-acetylcysteine are common though usually mild and easily treated. Serious reactions to N-acetylcysteine however, are rare and there have been no previous reported fatalities with its therapeutic use. This report describes the case of a 40 year old brittle asthmatic patient who died after treatment with intravenous N-acetylcysteine. Asthma is a risk factor for adverse reactions to N-acetylcysteine and special caution should be exercised in its use in brittle asthmatic patients.

 

Adverse reactions to N-acetylcysteine are common but rarely serious; anaphylactoid reactions occur in around 3% of cases and include, urticarial rash, angioedema, bronchospasm, and hypotension.2,4–6 These reactions, however, are usually mild and respond to stopping the infusion and symptomatic treatment with antihistamines. Usually the infusion can then be restarted at the 50 mg/kg over four hours dose.2 Reactions with systemic features however, may require treatment with intramuscular adrenaline and corticosteroids.

 

Although there have been deaths associated with overdose of N-acetylcysteine,4 none have been reported with normal treatment doses. We describe the first fatal reaction to the therapeutic use of N-acetylcysteine. Our patient's response was consistent with an anaphylactoid reaction, confined to severe bronchospasm, rather than a generalised anaphylactic reaction and this was supported by the normal serum tryptase level.7 N-acetylcysteine is known to cause bronchospasm, probably because of local histamine release or inhibition of allergen tachyphylaxis8 and caution is advised in patients with asthma. Asthma is a known risk factor for side effects to N-acetylcysteine but is not considered a contraindication.9

 

Our patient's brittle asthma contributed to the severity of her reaction, but the dose and rate of N-acetylcysteine infusion given might also be important. Treatment was prescribed and given as recommended by the manufacturer's guidelines based upon whole bodyweight, however, no estimate of lean body mass was made (N-acetylcysteine does not distribute into fatty tissue10). In addition, some authors have recommended giving the initial infusion over 60 minutes in an attempt to reduce side effects11 but trial evidence to support this practice is awaited.

 

 

 

Old study with mouse cells:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2409763

 

Abstract

The mucolytic drug N-acetyl cysteine has been shown to release histamine from cultured mouse mast cells and from human basophils. At neutral pH the release was moderate and non-cytotoxic. If the acidity of the drug was not neutralized, this histamine release was markedly potentiated, but was then associated with a reduction in the viability of the cells. However, the high level of release could not be reproduced by simply exposing the cells to an acidic medium. The results are discussed in terms of a possible mechanism for the adverse reactions sometimes observed during N-acetyl cysteine therapy.

 

 

 

__________________________________

 

[Published in Clinical Toxicology 2008.  I pulled the full text on EBSCOhost but I cannot export this one to PDF so I'll copy and paste a few things from it] 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18803085

 

Risk factors and mechanisms of anaphylactoid reactions to acetylcysteine in acetaminophen overdose

 

Background. Adverse effects to N-acetylcysteine (NAC) are well recognized, but their etiology and incidence are unclear. Methods. The nature and severity of adverse effects were prospectively studied in 169 patients and potential reaction mediators studied in 22 patients. Results. Adverse effects were minimal in 101 (59.8%), moderate in 51 (30.2%), and severe in 17 (10.1%). Features were nausea (70.4%), vomiting (60.4%), flushing (24.9%), pruritus (20.1%), dyspnea (13.6%), chest pain (7.1%), dizziness (7.7%), fever (4.7%), wheeze and bronchospasm (7.1%), and rash and urticaria (3.6%). Serum acetaminophen concentration was lower in patients with severe adverse effects: median (IQR) 46 mg/L (0 to 101 mg/L), moderate 108 mg/L (54 to 178 mg/L), and minimal 119 mg/L (77 to 174 mg/L), p = 0.002. Family history of allergy and female gender were independent risk factors for adverse effects. Severity of adverse effects was associated with histamine release: AUC for change from baseline histamine was −6 ng/mL min (−60 to 11 ng/mL min) in the minimal group, 26 ng/mL min (3–129 ng/mL min) in the moderate group, and 49 ng/mL min (21–68 ng/mL min) in the severe group (p = 0.01). There was no increase in tryptase and no differences between groups for NAC concentrations or hemostatic and inflammatory variables (factors II, VII, IX, X, vWF, tPA, IL6, and CRP). Conclusion. Severity of adverse effects correlates with the extent of histamine release. Histamine release appears independent of tryptase suggesting a non-mast cell source. Acetaminophen is protective against adverse effects of NAC, and mechanisms by which acetaminophen might lessen histamine release require further attention.

 

Introduction

Acetaminophen is the main cause of fulminant hepatic failure in the United Kingdom and elsewhere (1). In overdose, acetaminophen is converted to a reactive metabolite (N-acetylp-benzo-quinone imine), which may cause hepatic necrosis. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has long been used as an effective antidote in acetaminophen overdose. The current protocol in the United Kingdom involves a step-down intravenous infusion of 150 mg/kg in 200 mL 5% dextrose over 15 min, followed by 50 mg/kg in 500 mL 5% dextrose over 4 h, and 100 mg/kg in 1,000 mL 5% dextrose over 16 h (2). Since its introduction in 1979, there have been reports of anaphylactoid adverse reactions to this regimen with rates of occurrence variously estimated between 3 and 9% in retrospective studies and 40–50% in prospective studies (3–8).

 

The full profile of adverse reactions reported includes rash, pruritus, flushing, nausea and vomiting, coughing, dyspnoea, chest pain, bronchospasm, wheezing, angioedema, hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, electrocardiograph abnormalities, and fever (3–9). Asthma is a risk factor for adverse effects of NAC (10,11), and death has been reported in a patient with asthma (12). The mechanistic basis of adverse reactions to NAC remains unclear. NAC is capable of stimulating histamine release in vitro, and dose-dependent histamine-mediated weal and flare responses in susceptible individuals (13,14). Adverse reactions in healthy people after antidotal doses of NAC are associated with a rapid increase of circulating factor VIII and von Willebrand factor (vWF) concentrations (within 1 h of commencing infusion), thought due to inflammation of the vascular endothelium (15). In contrast to anaphylactoid reactions, acute allergy and anaphylactic shock have been intensively studied. The latter are associated with increased circulating concentrations of histamine and tryptase due to mast cell degranulation, and altered concentrations of vWF and tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) due to impaired endothelial function (16–18). Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is secreted by mast cells and basophils and may contribute to the inflammatory component of allergic reactions (19–21). IL-6 has a longer half-life (48 h) than either serum histamine and tryptase and has been suggested as a biomarker in the setting of anaphylactoid reactions (20).

 

The extent to which these mechanisms are relevant to patients with acetaminophen overdose is unknown. The present study prospectively examined the rate of occurrence of adverse effects of NAC, including clinical features and possible risk factors. In a subset of these patients, circulating markers of mast cell degranulation, inflammation, and endothelial function were examined to better understand the underlying mechanisms of adverse effects of NAC.

 

Discussion

This study found that moderate and severe adverse reactions to NAC occurred in 40.2% (severe in 10.1%), which is broadly in keeping with existing reports (3–50%) (5–8). Discrepancies between existing reports are likely due to different case definitions, retrospective versus prospective data collection, and different study populations. Predisposing factors for anaphylactoid reactions to NAC are a history of atopy and asthma (3,10), drug allergy (11), and low plasma acetaminophen concentrations (5,7,8,11). This study identified family history of allergy and low acetaminophen concentrations as important but had insufficient power to address other factors adequately.

 

Systemic histamine concentrations were significantly higher in patients with moderate or severe adverse effects of NAC. Existing data show that intradermal NAC provokes a dose-dependent weal and flare response that is suppressed by pretreatment with a specific histamine-1 receptor antagonist (14). Taken together, the present findings strongly implicate histamine as a systemic mediator of adverse effects of NAC administration. Importantly, the occurrence of severe adverse effects cannot be explained by differences in NAC concentration alone because this was similar in the three groups. True anaphylaxis is associated with elevated histamine and tryptase concentrations, which correlate with clinical severity (17). Mast cell degranulation causes elevated histamine and tryptase concentrations that are detectable within 1–2 h, and tryptase has been suggested as a diagnostic test for anaphylaxis (25,26). In contrast, this study found that although histamine concentrations increased in patients with severe adverse effects, there was a lack of effect on tryptase concentrations.

 

Therefore, non-mast cell sources of histamine might be important. For example, NAC is capable of provoking dosedependent release of histamine from basophils and neutrophils (13,27). The authors propose that NAC-associated basophil degranulation might be important because this is not normally accompanied by significant tryptase release (28).

 

True anaphylaxis is associated with endothelial impairment and activation of the coagulation and fibrinolytic systems, including increased vWF and t-PA concentrations (18,29,30). Anaphylactoid reactions to therapeutic doses of NAC are accompanied by increasing factor VIII and vWF concentrations in healthy people (15). This study found that NAC administration led to a decrease of vitamin K dependent clotting factors [this might be relevant to the microbleeds found in the rats]  (II, VII, IX, and X), and there was a correlation between factor VIII and vWF, as noted elsewhere (15,30). However, there were no significant differences in any hemostatic variable between patient groups, suggesting that these do not contribute to adverse effects of NAC or to histamine release.

 

An inverse correlation was found between serum acetaminophen concentrations and severity of adverse effects, as reported elsewhere (5,7,8,11). A high incidence of adverse reactions to NAC (50%) in healthy people not receiving acetaminophen is further evidence that acetaminophen itself may have some protective effect against adverse effects of NAC (15).

 

NAC interferes with prostaglandin synthesis, resulting in increased PGF2 alpha and reduced PGE, thereby promoting bronchoconstriction (27). Supra-therapeutic concentrations of acetaminophen inhibit leukocytes and platelets via reversible cyclo-oxygenase inhibition and reduce prostaglandin and thromboxane synthesis (31,32). Therefore, acetaminophen might minimize the severity of NAC adverse effects by inhibiting the inflammatory cascade, as previously suggested (8).

More studies are required to better understand the effect of acetaminophen in preventing adverse effects of NAC.

 

A limitation is that the adverse effects cannot be attributed solely to NAC, and effects of ingested acetaminophen, coingested drugs, and ethanol might have contributed. A further limitation is that the classification tended to segregate patients with anaphylactoid reactions into the moderate and severe groups, whereas the minimal group mainly consisted of patients with gastrointestinal symptoms; these distinct clinical phenotypes might have separate underlying mechanisms. A further limitation is that the sample collection, storage, and processing might have had an impact on assay performance, thereby limiting the ability to interpret a lack of effect of NAC. This does not appear relevant to the clotting factor assays, which were sufficiently sensitive to detect a fall in factor II, VII, IX, and X concentrations.

 

NAC-induced histamine release in acetaminophen overdose occurs in the absence of release of other markers of mast cell degranulation or endothelial dysfunction. The broad range of adverse effect profiles illustrate the variability in inter-individual susceptibility to the adverse effects of NAC. The reasons for this variability also require to be understood to minimize the incidence of adverse reactions to NAC. The rates of nausea and vomiting we have observed are high, and this raises the issue of whether routine anti-emetic prophylaxis with an antihistamine would be effective and if histamine release is involved in their causation. There appear to be other individual factors that underlie the risk of having an adverse effect to NAC, and family history of allergy suggests that genetic factors may be relevant here. Whether reducing the initial bolus dose of NAC would reduce the incidence of adverse effects without impairing efficacy is another key question.

 

Conclusion

 

Anaphylactoid reactions to NAC are common after acetaminophen overdose. Low acetaminophen concentration is a risk factor for developing adverse reactions, and clinical severity is associated with the extent of systemic histamine release. Future studies need to address the mechanisms by which NAC is capable of stimulating histamine release, and mechanisms by which acetaminophen itself is capable of altering this process.

 

______________________

 

[Published in the journal Clinical Toxicology 2010.  The full text link at PubMed leads to a pay site, but I have the full PDF from EBSCOhost databases which I've attached to this post]

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20136478

 

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) attenuates in vitro mast cell and peripheral blood mononucleocyte cell histamine release induced by N-acetylcysteine

 

Abstract
INTRODUCTION:

The treatment of acute paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is frequently complicated by an anaphylactoid reaction to the antidote. The mechanism that underlies this reaction is unclear. We used the human mast cell line 1 (HMC-1) and human peripheral blood mononucleocytes (PBMCs) to investigate the effects of NAC and paracetamol on histamine secretion in vitro.

 

METHOD:

HMC-1 and human PBMCs were incubated in the presence of increasing concentrations of NAC +/- paracetamol. Cell viability was determined by the Trypan Blue Assay, and histamine secretion was measured by ELISA.

 

RESULTS:

NAC was toxic to HMC-1 cells at 100 mg/mL and to PBMCs at 67 mg/mL. NAC increased HMC-1 and PBMC histamine secretion at concentrations of NAC from 20 to 50 mg/mL and 2.5 to 100 mg/mL, respectively. NAC-induced histamine secretion by both cell types was reduced by co-incubation with 2.5 mg/mL of paracetamol.

 

CONCLUSION:

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is capable of modifying histamine secretion in vitro. This may explain the clinical observation of a lower incidence of adverse reactions to NAC in vivo when higher concentrations of paracetamol are present than when paracetamol concentrations are low. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) attenuates in vitro mast cell and PBMC cell histamine release induced by NAC.

 

Attached File  Clinical Toxicology.pdf   159.7KB   4 downloads

 

 

The treatment of acute paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is frequently complicated by an anaphylactoid reaction to the antidote. The mechanism that underlies this reaction is unclear. We used the human mast cell line 1 (HMC-1) and human peripheral blood mononucleocytes (PBMCs) to investigate the effects of NAC and paracetamol on histamine secretion in vitro. Method. HMC-1 and human PBMCs were incubated in the presence of increasing concentrations of NAC ± paracetamol. Cell viability was determined by the Trypan Blue Assay, and histamine secretion was measured by ELISA. Results. NAC was toxic to HMC-1 cells at 100 mg/mL and to PBMCs at 67 mg/mL. NAC increased HMC-1 and PBMC histamine secretion at concentrations of NAC from 20 to 50 mg/mL and 2.5 to 100 mg/mL, respectively. NAC-induced histamine secretion by both cell types was reduced by co-incubation with 2.5 mg/mL of paracetamol. Conclusion. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is capable of modifying histamine secretion in vitro. This may explain the clinical observation of a lower incidence of adverse reactions to NAC in vivo when higher concentrations of paracetamol are present than when paracetamol concentrations are low. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) attenuates in vitro mast cell and PBMC cell histamine release induced by NAC.

 

Introduction

N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) reduces hepatotoxicity following the bioactivation of paracetamol (acetaminophen) that occurs following acute overdose. This is thought to be partially due to the replenishment of intracellular hepatic glutathione, which reacts with and detoxifies the highly reactive metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzo-quinone-imine.1

 

Adverse reactions to NAC have been described following its introduction to clinical practice as an antidote to paracetamol poisoning. The most common include gastrointestinal side effects and also a non-IgE-dependent anaphylactoid response. The frequency of anaphylactoid reactions ranges between 1.82 and 10%3 in retrospective studies, based on the clinical features of flushing, rash, hypotension, and bronchospasm, and as high as 48% in prospective studies.4 

 

The anaphylactoid response to NAC appears to be concentration dependent and does not occur upon re-challenge with lower dose rates. Clinically, important reactions typically occur early during therapeutic infusions of NAC, at a time when the NAC concentration is highest.5

 

The exact mechanism of anaphylactoid reaction to NAC is unknown. It is likely to be mediated, at least in part, by histamine for histamine plasma concentration correlates with the severity of the reaction,6 and prophylactic antihistamines can abolish it.7

 

Patients who previously developed an adverse reaction to intravenous NAC showed a greater cutaneous wheal and flare response to intradermal NAC than those who had not previously developed an anaphylactoid response to intravenous NAC.5 This suggests that certain individuals may be predisposed to this type of non-IgE-mediated reaction.

 

Plasma paracetamol concentration, 4 h after ingestion, also affects susceptibility to NAC adverse reactions. Waring et al. observed that a 4-h post ingestion serum paracetamol concentration greater than 200 mg/L (0.2 mg/mL) was associated with a lower incidence of anaphylactoid reactions to NAC.8

We used the human mast cell line 1 (HMC-1) and human peripheral blood mononucleocytes (PBMCs) to investigate the effects of NAC and paracetamol on histamine secretion in vitro.

 

Results

HMC-1 cell viability remained greater than 95% up to a concentration of 80 mg/mL of NAC. However, at 100 mg/mL it fell to 50%, p < 0.05. PBMC viability remained greater than 95% until a NAC concentration of 33 mg/mL. However, it fell to 49% at 67 mg/mL, p < 0.05. Paracetamol was not observed to be toxic to either cell line up to concentrations of 5 mg/mL (full data not shown).

 

The effect of varying paracetamol concentration (0–5 mg/ mL) on NAC-induced histamine secretion by HMC-1 cells was studied in a single range finding experiment. Suppression of histamine secretion first became significant at 2.5 mg/ mL of paracetamol, p < 0.05 (data not shown). This concentration was used in further experiments.

 

NAC increased HMC-1 histamine secretion at concentrations of NAC from 20 to 50 mg/mL when compared to basal histamine secretion, p < 0.05 (Fig. 1). NAC-induced HMC-1 histamine secretion was reduced by co-incubation with 2.5 mg/mL of paracetamol, p < 0.05 (Fig. 1). Paracetamol did not significantly alter HMC-1 histamine secretion at concentrations ranging from 0 to 2.5 mg/mL (Fig. 2).

 

NAC increased PBMC histamine secretion at concentrations of NAC from 2.5 to 5 mg/mL, p < 0.05 (Fig. 3). Further studies confirmed that histamine release was also significantly increased at concentrations of NAC of 100 mg/mL (data not shown). NAC-induced PBMC histamine secretion was reduced by co-incubation with 2.5 mg/mL of paracetamol, p < 0.05 (Fig. 3). Paracetamol did not significantly alter PBMC histamine secretion at concentrations ranging from 0 to 5 mg/mL (Fig. 4).

 

Discussion

NAC induced HMC-1 and PBMC toxicity, in terms of reduced cell viability, at concentrations of 100 and 67 mg/mL, respectively. At concentrations below this NAC did not significantly alter HMC-1 or PBMC viability. Paracetamol did not reduce HMC-1 or PBMC viability at concentrations ranging from 0 to 5 mg/mL.

 

HMC-1 histamine secretion was significantly increased from basal conditions at concentrations of NAC greater than 10 mg/mL, and PBMC histamine secretion was increased from basal conditions at NAC concentrations over 2.5 mg/mL. Paracetamol did not significantly alter basal histamine secretion over concentrations of 0–2.5 mg/mL in either cell type.

 

The effect of NAC-induced histamine secretion was significantly reduced in the presence of paracetamol at a concentration of 2.5 mg/mL in both HMC-1 and human PBMCs.

 

This study indicates that NAC is capable of increasing histamine secretion from a human mast cell line and ex vivo human PBMCs. Furthermore, this effect is attenuated in the presence of paracetamol. This supports the findings of Waring et al.8 that paracetamol may reduce the incidence of adverse reactions to NAC in vivo. 

 

Mast cells secrete pre-synthesized histamine and other intragranular mediators through exocytosis. In mast cells, degranulation requires the remodeling of the cytoskeletal barrier in response to either IgE binding to the high affinity IgE receptor or, in the case of opioids and physical stimuli, through an IgE-independent pathway.1

 

Prescott et al. found that the in vivo average peak plasma concentration of NAC during loading was 554 mg/L (0.554 mg/ mL).14 In comparison, during this study, histamine secretion only became significantly increased at NAC concentrations 2.5 and 20 mg/mL in PBMC and HMC-1 cells, respectively. This may reflect the, previously observed, reduced degranulation of cultured HMC-1 when compared to wild-type mast cells13 or the absence of other factors required for degranulation in vitro.

 

Barrett et al. have previously found that NAC significantly increased histamine secretion in a murine mast cell line (PT18) and in human basophils at concentrations of NAC ranging from 10 to 50 mM (200–1,000 mg/mL).15 This effect was strongly influenced by pH and could be reduced, but not completely abolished, by neutralizing the acidity of the NAC solutions used.

 

We used pharmaceutical grade reagents that are buffered by sodium hydroxide and EDTA. As a consequence, pH was constant throughout our experiments. We did not specifically investigate the effect of the buffering solution on the histamine secretion. It is also possible that the chelation of intracellular calcium ions by the EDTA may have attenuated histamine exocytosis.

 

This study is limited by its reductionist approach of considering the mast cell in isolation. The mechanism by which paracetamol inhibits histamine secretion also remains unknown. Further studies should now be undertaken to address these issues.

 

_________________

2015

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/25752743

 

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To describe and compare the characteristics of paracetamol poisoning in adolescent and adult patients.

 

METHOD:

Descriptive retrospective case series of adolescent (12-17 years) and adult (>18 years) patients presenting to a metropolitan hospital network ED, diagnosed with paracetamol poisoning from October 2009 to September 2013.

 

RESULTS:

There were 220 adolescent (median age 16 years, 47% treated with acetylcysteine [NAC]) and 647 adult presentations (median age 27 years, 42% treated with NAC) for paracetamol poisoning in the study period. Adolescent patients were more frequently women (89% vs 76%; odds ratio [OR] 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-3.8) and ingested similar amounts of paracetamol (18 g) when requiring NAC treatment. Adolescents were more likely to ingest paracetamol as a single agent (53% vs 34%; OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.6-3.0) and less likely to ingest compound paracetamol products than adults (18% vs 29%; OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36-0.79). Adolescents were less likely to report accidental supratherapeutic ingestion of paracetamol (0.02% vs 10%; OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.09-0.58), or co-ingestion of prescription medications (25% vs 43%; OR 0.4; 95% CI 0.31-0.62). Adolescents had more frequent histamine release reactions to NAC than adults (17% vs 8%; OR 2.3; 95% CI 1.2-4.5). No cases required liver transplantation or resulted in death.

 

CONCLUSION:

Adolescents ingested comparable amounts of paracetamol to adults, when presenting with deliberate self-poisoning. However, there were significant differences in co-ingested medications and the reason for ingestion of paracetamol. Histamine reactions to NAC were more common in adolescents; however, most were mild. Overall, outcome was favourable in both cohorts.

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Duchykins, 13 July 2015 - 04:43 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • dislike x 1

#12 ta5

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 952 posts
  • 324
  • Location: 

Posted 18 July 2015 - 12:47 AM

It appears the problem is not increased cysteine availability, but free NAC that escaped N-deacetylation. 

 

Darryl, did you mean?:

 

It appears the problem is not increased NAC availability, but free cysteine that escaped N-deacetylation.

 

Edit: On 2nd thought, I guess you did mean what you wrote. 


Edited by ta5, 18 July 2015 - 01:14 AM.

  • Enjoying the show x 1

#13 zorba990

  • Guest
  • 1,601 posts
  • 315

Posted 18 July 2015 - 02:16 PM

re :"It seems clear that NAC causes systemic histamine release. "

Wondering if the reason I don't have any issues with 20 yrs > 2 grams a day is because I also take high dose vitamin c, which reduces histamine
e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1578094

J Am Coll Nutr. 1992 Apr;11(2):172-6.
Antihistamine effect of supplemental ascorbic acid and neutrophil chemotaxis.
Johnston CS1, Martin LJ, Cai X.
Author information
Abstract
Renewed interest in the antihistamine action of ascorbic acid has emerged with the recently recognized immunosuppressive role of histamine. We examined the antihistamine effect of acute and chronic vitamin C (VC) administration and its effect on neutrophil chemotaxis in healthy men and women. In the chronic study, 10 subjects ingested a placebo during weeks 1, 2, 5 and 6, and 2 g/day of VC during weeks 3 and 4. Fasting blood samples were collected after the initial 2-week period (baseline) and at the end of weeks 4 and 6. Plasma ascorbate rose significantly following VC administration compared to baseline and withdrawal values. Neutrophil chemotaxis rose 19% (NS) during VC administration, and fell 30% after VC withdrawal, but these changes were not correlated to plasma ascorbate levels (r = 0.01). Chemotaxis was inversely correlated to blood histamine (r = -0.32, p = 0.045), and, compared to baseline and withdrawal values, histamine levels were depressed 38% following VC supplementation. Blood histamine and neutrophil chemotaxis did not change 4 hours following a single 2 g dose of ascorbic acid, although plasma ascorbate rose 150%. These data indicate that VC may indirectly enhance chemotaxis by detoxifying histamine in vivo.
PMID: 1578094 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
  • like x 1

#14 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 18 July 2015 - 03:22 PM

re :"It seems clear that NAC causes systemic histamine release. "

Wondering if the reason I don't have any issues with 20 yrs > 2 grams a day is because I also take high dose vitamin c, which reduces histamine
e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1578094

J Am Coll Nutr. 1992 Apr;11(2):172-6.
Antihistamine effect of supplemental ascorbic acid and neutrophil chemotaxis.
Johnston CS1, Martin LJ, Cai X.
Author information
Abstract
Renewed interest in the antihistamine action of ascorbic acid has emerged with the recently recognized immunosuppressive role of histamine. We examined the antihistamine effect of acute and chronic vitamin C (VC) administration and its effect on neutrophil chemotaxis in healthy men and women. In the chronic study, 10 subjects ingested a placebo during weeks 1, 2, 5 and 6, and 2 g/day of VC during weeks 3 and 4. Fasting blood samples were collected after the initial 2-week period (baseline) and at the end of weeks 4 and 6. Plasma ascorbate rose significantly following VC administration compared to baseline and withdrawal values. Neutrophil chemotaxis rose 19% (NS) during VC administration, and fell 30% after VC withdrawal, but these changes were not correlated to plasma ascorbate levels (r = 0.01). Chemotaxis was inversely correlated to blood histamine (r = -0.32, p = 0.045), and, compared to baseline and withdrawal values, histamine levels were depressed 38% following VC supplementation. Blood histamine and neutrophil chemotaxis did not change 4 hours following a single 2 g dose of ascorbic acid, although plasma ascorbate rose 150%. These data indicate that VC may indirectly enhance chemotaxis by detoxifying histamine in vivo.
PMID: 1578094 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

 

I don't know why.  But I don't think I need to point out that some people are much more histamine tolerant than others.  

 

Or the fact that therapeutic doses are in the neighborhood of 150mg/kg body mass, so for someone weighing 150 lbs => 72kg x 150mg = 10800 mg NAC.

 

So these much smaller (albeit chronic) doses of NAC that people like us might take shouldn't be expected to produce anything near the kind of reactions that were documented in hospitals and studies.

 

However that does not mean NAC at the lower long-term doses is harmless to us.

 

The kind of adverse effects people like us care about, like systemic histamine and inflammation, microbleeds, alterations in vitamin K-dependent clotting factors, disturbance in prostaglandin synthesis, etc  things that would be only mildly detrimental to our brain health, cognition, emotional/psychological wellbeing or longevity in the grand scheme of things, would be considered minor side effects by the medical community if they're not disrupting your daily life or otherwise causing significant problems.  At the present they're looking at the moderate to severe reactions because those give them more information about what NAC can do, and more easily obtain information about NAC's effects, and because those are more serious reactions.

 

This is just like what I told people about a study on toxicity in sunifiram:

 

 "There is something else people need to know.  That one study that is cited everywhere about sunifiram safety; the megadosing of test subjects for the purpose of gauging toxicity is about looking for the real biggies like damaging liver, damaging kidneys, blood pressure, stroke, heart attack, heart failure, respiratory failure, internal bleeding, seizure, etc.  Lethal or physically crippling shit.  Nonlethal, nondebilitating and therefore relatively minor side effects fly under the radar all the time, these kinds of things often need their own studies and are usually only funded after a suspicious amount of reports are made linked to a substance.  Like mild neurotoxicity accumulating damage over time."

 

 

So what am I trying to say?  You don't know what the NAC is doing to you, whether it's doing more harm than good, or vice versa, or nil of both.  It's too understudied.  Whether you have obvious reactions like flushing, nausea or changes in breathing and blood pressure is not the point here.  That you don't have any of those problems is not terribly meaningful.  This is about the minor adverse effects of a drug, the ones we don't notice from the beginning and gradually build up the longer we take whatever drug it is that initially appears harmless.


Edited by Duchykins, 18 July 2015 - 03:26 PM.


#15 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 18 July 2015 - 03:38 PM

I'm also going to be checking out that journal and the authors of that paper, since it's about vitamin C.  I'll post anything relevant soon.


Edited by Duchykins, 18 July 2015 - 03:39 PM.

  • Enjoying the show x 1

#16 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 22 July 2015 - 05:47 AM

Didn't find anything terribly suspicious, so I'm glad for that.



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#17 Arjuna

  • Guest
  • 130 posts
  • 31
  • Location:International Waters

Posted 23 November 2015 - 10:45 PM

...why didn't they have another set of "control" given NAC without the SHRSP genes.  

 

I wish I hadn't read this, NAC is really helping my OCD.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: nac, bbb, amyloid, microbleeds

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users