{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,4]],"date-time":"2026-05-04T03:44:13Z","timestamp":1777866253650,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"S. Karger AG","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2009,1,29]],"date-time":"2009-01-29T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1233187200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/pages\/terms-and-conditions"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2009,1,29]],"date-time":"2009-01-29T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1233187200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/pages\/terms-and-conditions"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Digestion"],"abstract":"<jats:p>The new H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;\/sub&gt;-receptor antagonist mifentidine (DA 4577) was tested for its antisecretory and gastric motor effects in comparison with cimetidine and ranitidine. The Shay rat preparation (5 h) was used for studying gastric secretion; the gastric emptying of a liquid meal was chosen for studying gastric motility. All the three compounds inhibited acid secretion in a dose-dependent fashion. Calculated ED&lt;sub&gt;50s&lt;\/sub&gt; were 2.3, 12.2 and 92.8 mg\u00b7kg-1 for mifentidine, ranitidine and cimetidine, respectively. Therefore, in this animal model, mifentidine was about 40 times more potent than cimetidine and 5 times more potent than ranitidine. As far as gastric emptying is concerned, the effect of equiactive antisecretory doses (i.e. the respective ED&lt;sub&gt;50s&lt;\/sub&gt; calculated from the previously established dose-response curves) of all the three antagonists was completely different. Cimetidine delayed emptying rate, whereas ranitidine accelerated it and mifentidine was completely ineffective. However, at higher doses, also this compound affected emptying rate by reducing it dose-dependently. Gastric and duodenal ulcers were induced in the rat by dimaprit (100 mg\u00b7kg-1 intravenously) and cysteamine (250 mg\u00b7 kg-1 subcutaneously), respectively. As far as gastric ulcer is concerned, the ED&lt;sub&gt;50s&lt;\/sub&gt; (the effective dose which protected 50% of the animals from lesions) were 0.23, 4.40 and 9.70 mg\u00b7kg-1 for mifentidine, ranitidine and cimetidine, respectively. As regards duodenal ulcer, the ED&lt;sub&gt;50&lt;\/sub&gt; was 4.48 for mifentidine and 150.00 mg\u00b7kg-1 for ranitidine. In this animal model, the efficacy of cimetidine was very low. Therefore an ED&lt;sub&gt;50&lt;\/sub&gt; could not be determined. In conclusion, results of the present investigation demonstrated that mifentidine is a potent antisecretory compound and an effective anti-ulcer agent in the rat.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1159\/000199269","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2009,2,2]],"date-time":"2009-02-02T08:57:37Z","timestamp":1233565057000},"page":"7-16","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":13,"title":["The Effect of the New H\n                    <sub>2<\/sub>\n                    -Receptor Antagonist Mifentidine on Gastric Secretion, Gastric Emptying and Experimental Gastric and Duodenal Ulcers in the Rat: Comparison with Cimetidine and Ranitidine"],"prefix":"10.1159","author":[{"given":"Carmelo","family":"Scarpignato","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Martin","family":"Tangwa","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Roberto","family":"Tramacere","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Piero","family":"Del Soldato","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"127","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2009,1,29]]},"container-title":["Digestion"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/199269","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/article-pdf\/doi\/10.1159\/000199269","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,30]],"date-time":"2026-04-30T08:18:22Z","timestamp":1777537102000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/article\/doi\/10.1159\/000199269"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2009,1,29]]},"references-count":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1159\/000199269","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0012-2823","1421-9867"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0012-2823","type":"print"},{"value":"1421-9867","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2009,1,29]]}}}