Mesna 600mg tablets
Requires a prescription from a doctor or prescriber
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Official medicine documents
Yellow Card
Report side effects (MHRA)
Drug safety updates
MHRA alerts for Mesna
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Suspected adverse reactions reported for Mesna
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
View EudraVigilance report
Suspected adverse reactions reported for Mesna
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
4 branded products available
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Mesna on the MHRA register
Mesna 600mg tablets
Mesna 600mg tablets
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 14 · Randomised trials: 6 · 1982–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
A. Wolfson, M. Brady, T. Rocereto, et al.
Gynecologic oncology, 2007
Jotic A, Savic Vujovic K, Cirkovic A, et al.
2024
- Biofilms
- Otitis Media
- Anti-Bacterial Agents
Otitis media (OM) is a frequent disease with incidence rate of 5300 cases per 100,000 people. Recent studies showed that polymicrobial biofilm formation represents a significant pathogenic mechanism in recurrent and chronic forms of OM. Biofilm enables bacteria to resist antibiotics that would typically be recommended in guidelines, contributing to the ineffectiveness of current antimicrobial strategies. Given the challenges of successfully treating bacterial biofilms, there is an growing interest in identifying novel and effective compounds to overcome antibacterial resistance. The objective of this review was to provide an overview of the novel compounds with antibiofilm effects on bacterial biofilm formed by clinical isolates of OM. The systematic review included studies that evaluated antibiofilm effect of novel natural or synthetic compounds on bacterial biofilm formed from clinical isolates obtained from patients with OM. The eligibility criteria were defined using the PICOS system: (P) Population: all human patients with bacterial OM; (I) Intervention: novel natural or synthetic compound with biofilm effect; (C) Control standard therapeutic antimicrobial agents or untreated biofilms, (O) Outcome: antibiofilm effect (biofilm inhibition, biofilm eradication), (S) Study design. The PRISMA protocol for systematic reviews and meta-analysis was followed. From 3564 potentially eligible studies, 1817 duplicates were removed, and 1705 were excluded according to defined exclusion criteria. A total of 41 studies with available full texts were retrieved by two independent authors. Fifteen articles were selected for inclusion in the systematic review which included 125 patients with OM. A total of 17 different novel compounds were examined, including N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC), tea tree oil, xylitol, eugenol, Aloe barbadensis, Zingiber officinale, Curcuma longa, Acacia arabica, antisense peptide nucleic acids, probiotics Streptococcus salivarius and Streptococcus oralis, Sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate (MESNA), bioactive glass, green synthesized copper oxide nanoparticles, radish, silver nanoparticles and acetic acid. Staphylococcus aureus was the most commonly studied pathogen, followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Haemophilus influenzae. Biofilm inhibition only by an examined compound was assessed in six studies; biofilm eradication in four studies, and both biofilm inhibition and biofilm eradication were examined in five studies. This systematic review indicates that some compounds like NAC, prebiotics, nanoparticles and MESNA that have significant effects on biofilm are safe and could be researched more extensively for further clinical use. However, a lack of data about reliable and efficient compounds used in therapy of different types of otitis media still remains in the literature.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Iturbe Cordero AA, Jaramillo AP, Omana Bautista NM, et al.
2025
Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are managed with interventions ranging from conservative physiotherapy to minimally invasive procedures, but their comparative effectiveness is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials to quantify treatment effects on pain and function. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), we included randomized/quasi-randomized TMD trials reporting pre-/post-procedure and between-group outcomes. Ten trials (~500 participants) were pooled. Pain (Visual Analog Score (VAS) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)) was the primary outcome while maximal mouth opening (MMO) was the secondary outcome. Medians, interquartile ranges (IQRs) and standard errors (SEs) were converted to mean/standard deviation (SD) where needed. RevMan 5.4 (inverse-variance, random-effects) was used for statistical analysis. Subgroups contrasted minimally invasive (arthrocentesis/lavage±injectates) versus conservative/physical therapy (manual therapy, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) vs transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), ultrasound vs splints). Small-study effects were explored using funnel plots. Active interventions improved pain more than controls. In conservative care, adding manual therapy enhanced exercise/education, photobiomodulation outperformed TENS, and ultrasound gave modest early benefit. Invasive protocols (arthrocentesis) yielded faster pain relief than non-surgical comparators, with small differences across lavage agents/volumes. Both strategies produced clinically meaningful pooled benefits, with slightly greater effects for minimally invasive care. Heterogeneity was moderate; funnel plot symmetry suggested little publication bias. Excluding the retracted sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate (MESNA) trial did not change the findings. Both conservative and minimally invasive approaches yield meaningful short-term pain reductions in TMD. Benefits are greatest with multimodal conservative programs and arthrocentesis as escalation. Publication bias was limited. Future randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should standardize outcomes and clarify escalation criteria.
Abstract licence: CC BY
R. Skinner, I. Sharkey, Andrew D.J. Pearson, et al.
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 1993
J. Vose, E. Reed, G. Pippert, et al.
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 1993
A. A. Mosleh
BMC Oral Health, 2024
- Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
- Mesna
- Pain Measurement
Sadeghi A, Fazel MY, Abbasinazari M, et al.
2026
Amir Sadeghi, Hesamoddin Samar, Mohammad Abbasinazari, et al.
JGH Open, 2025
K. Antman, J. Crowley, S. Balcerzak, et al.
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 1993
J. S. Miser, T. J. Kinsella, Timothy J. Triche, et al.
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 1987
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.