The present study demonstrated that the incidence of diarrhea and nasal mucosal edema was significantly reduced with Goreisan treatment, without increasing vasospasm-related complications in patients with aSAH treated with clazosentan.
ET-1 receptor is distributed in microvessels with the ET-1A receptor, which is the most potent vasoconstrictor. The ET-1A receptor is more abundant than the ET-1B receptor in normal human intestine and colon [2, 18]. Therefore, systemic administration of clazosentan, a selective ET-1A receptor antagonist, can induce vasodilation and cause diarrhea owing to mucosal edema in the gastrointestinal tract. In contrast to the relatively low incidence (5.5%) of diarrhea observed in a phase III trial in Japan [3], a high incidence (21.9%) of diarrhea was observed during clazosentan treatment in the NG group in the present study. An underlying cause of the discrepancy may be that the present study focused on quantitatively assessing the incidence of diarrhea using the Bristol stool chart [8], which revealed the underlying incidence of diarrhea in the previous phase III trial [3]. As previously described, Goreisan has been shown to have an antidiarrheal and gastrointestinal tissue-protective effect by inhibiting intestinal aquaporin 3 expression [10]. Consistently, the patients treated with both clazosentan and Goreisan had a significantly lower incidence of muddy and watery diarrhea than did patients under clazosentan only, regardless of the nutrition format used in the present study.
The pharmacological effect of clazosentan, as an antagonist of the selective ET-1A receptor, on the upper and lower respiratory mucosa (including the nasal mucosa) should also be considered, as ET-1A and B receptors are expressed in these tissues [9]. As previously described, pulmonary edema, which is related to edema of the lower respiratory mucosa, is a significant adverse event that has been well-described in a previous randomized study [3, 5]. Furthermore, in our real-world experience, some of the patients without impaired consciousness have complained of a stuffy nose and difficulty in breathing during clazosentan treatment, particularly when sleeping. In the present study, relative mucosal thickness, an objective finding of mucosal edema, in the upper respiratory tract was significantly lower in patients treated with both clazosentan and Goreisan than in those treated with clazosentan alone. Although the effect of Goreisan on the upper respiratory tract may be minimal for patients with mild to moderate clinical conditions (such as WFNS grades I–III), it could be critical for patients with severe clinical condition (such as WFNS grade IV-V) or those with upper airway comorbidities such as obesity or sleep apnea syndrome during clazosentan treatment; these patients should be closely monitored.
Goreisan has been demonstrated to increase urine output owing to its diuretic effect, without affecting electrolyte balance [10, 20]. However, because the administration of loop diuretics was equally required to control appropriate fluid balance regardless of the combination of Goreisan in the present study, the diuretic effect of Goreisan might not be strong. Regarding the electrolyte balance, the incidence of refractory hyponatremia was significantly lower in patients treated with both clazosentan and Goreisan than in those treated with clazosentan alone. This may be related to the effect of Goreisan in reducing the incidence of diarrhea, which can cause hyponatremia, although the underlying mechanism remains unclear.
This study had certain limitations that require further discussion. First, this study compared historical controls with a prospective cohort rather than using randomization. Although vasospasm management was identical between the two cohorts, the administration of Goreisan was the only difference. Second, although the pharmacological mechanism of Goreisan for improving adverse events related to mucosal edema seems to involve inhibiting aquaporin upregulation, preclinical research is required to validate this result. Third, because the sample size of the present study was small, a multicenter trial with a larger sample size would have been beneficial.