Health Boards
Mon-22-12-2014, 17:30 PM
DMF versus MEF
Although the in vitro research of Litjens has shown that DMF is evidently effective in contrary to MEF, several clinical studies still show, that the combination of DMF/MEF gives a faster result than the treatment with DMF alone.
But concerning the end result there is no difference in the treatment with DMF or the combination DMF/MEF.
Because MEF does not have a result by itself, the explanation of this pharmacodynamic difference can be found in the availability of metal-ions in MEF.
Metals can catalize biochemical reactions, and specifically the reactions in the citric acid cycle. This effect was researched in the Eighties and it was determined which metal-ion was the most effective in combination with DMF, this metal-ion was added to Psorinovo, while removing the MEF. (In the mean time this had disappeared again, there are no metal-ions anymore in the medication).
Strangely enough most studies in the past and present rest on the use of the DMF/MEF cocktail, and this formula is as is produced and prescribed in the Netherlands. Sebok et. al did describe in 1994 an in vitro study showing the working principle of MEF and DMF on hyper proliferative HaCa keratinocytes. They found that the therapeutic width of DMF is larger than that of MEF, which means that MEF in therapeutic doses is more toxic than DMF.
Hagedorn M, et al showed in animal tests that MEF slows the DNA synthesis by preventing the inclusion of 14C thymidine. Also Hohenegger M et al, showed the damaging effect of the monoethylester of fumaric acid very clearly. So this means that there is no good reason to use combinations of MEF and DMF. The product "Fumarate" of Thiofarma, which contains next to DMF also MEF, is however still available on the market. And is prescribed by some dermatologists, and is strangely enough fully paid by the insurances.
Although the in vitro research of Litjens has shown that DMF is evidently effective in contrary to MEF, several clinical studies still show, that the combination of DMF/MEF gives a faster result than the treatment with DMF alone.
But concerning the end result there is no difference in the treatment with DMF or the combination DMF/MEF.
Because MEF does not have a result by itself, the explanation of this pharmacodynamic difference can be found in the availability of metal-ions in MEF.
Metals can catalize biochemical reactions, and specifically the reactions in the citric acid cycle. This effect was researched in the Eighties and it was determined which metal-ion was the most effective in combination with DMF, this metal-ion was added to Psorinovo, while removing the MEF. (In the mean time this had disappeared again, there are no metal-ions anymore in the medication).
Strangely enough most studies in the past and present rest on the use of the DMF/MEF cocktail, and this formula is as is produced and prescribed in the Netherlands. Sebok et. al did describe in 1994 an in vitro study showing the working principle of MEF and DMF on hyper proliferative HaCa keratinocytes. They found that the therapeutic width of DMF is larger than that of MEF, which means that MEF in therapeutic doses is more toxic than DMF.
Hagedorn M, et al showed in animal tests that MEF slows the DNA synthesis by preventing the inclusion of 14C thymidine. Also Hohenegger M et al, showed the damaging effect of the monoethylester of fumaric acid very clearly. So this means that there is no good reason to use combinations of MEF and DMF. The product "Fumarate" of Thiofarma, which contains next to DMF also MEF, is however still available on the market. And is prescribed by some dermatologists, and is strangely enough fully paid by the insurances.