MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1804983902 · doi:10.3171/2009.6.spine08915

Timing and duration of anti–α4β1 integrin treatment after spinal cord injury: effect on therapeutic efficacy

2009· article· en· W1804983902 sur OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer C. Fleming, Feng Bao, Yuhua Chen, Eilis F. Hamilton, Laura E. González-Lara, Paula J. Foster, Lynne C. Weaver

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSpinal Cord Injury Research
Établissements canadiensRobarts Clinical TrialsSpinal Cord Injury OntarioWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesIC Design Education CenterCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBiogen
Mots-clésMedicineSpinal cord injurySpinal cordAnesthesiaNeuropathic painInflammationInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECT: After spinal cord injury (SCI) leukocytes infiltrate the injured cord, causing significant damage and further impairment of functional recovery. The leukocyte integrin alpha4beta1 is crucial for their entry. The authors previously demonstrated that an anti-alpha4 monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment attenuates leukocyte infiltration, improves motor and autonomic function, and reduces neuropathic pain when administered at 2 hours and 24 hours after SCI. METHODS: The authors conducted 2 preclinical studies: the first determined effects of treatment commencing at 6 hours, a clinically relevant time after injury, and the second examined effects of long-lasting treatment (28 days) on neurological recovery after SCI, as current clinically used anti-inflammatory monoclonal antibodies have such longevity. In the first study (timing study), rats were treated with anti-alpha4 or control mAb (intravenously) at 6 hours and 48 hours after moderate (35 g) thoracic compression SCI. Effects on intraspinal inflammation and oxidative injury were assessed at 3 and 7 days after SCI; motor function and pain were examined for 6 weeks. In the second study (duration study), anti-alpha4 mAb was administered starting 2 hours after SCI and subsequently every 3 days for 4 weeks (total of 8 doses), using a schedule of decreasing doses to resemble the pharmacodynamics of long-lasting antibodies used clinically. Motor function and pain were examined for 6 weeks. Lesions were assessed for tissue sparing and inflammation at 6 weeks by histological examination and MR imaging. RESULTS: Anti-alpha4 mAb treatment at 6 hours and 48 hours after SCI (timing study) significantly decreased neutrophil and monocyte/macrophage influx at 3 days by 36% and 20%, respectively, but had no effect by at 7 days after SCI. Antibody treatment significantly reduced intraspinal myeloperoxidase activity by 48% and lipid peroxidation by 27% at 3 days post-injury. The treatment did not improve locomotor function but reduced mechanical allodynia elicited from the trunk and hind paw by ~50% at 3-6 weeks after SCI. In contrast, long-term mAb treatment commencing at 2 hours after SCI (duration study) significantly improved locomotor function at 2-6 weeks after SCI, (mean BBB scores +/- SE: treated rats, 8.3 +/- 0.16; controls, 7.3 +/- 0.2 at 6 weeks). At 3-6 weeks, mAb treatment decreased mechanical allodynia elicited from the trunk and hind paw by ~55%. This recovery correlated with 30% more myelin-containing white matter in treated rats than controls at 6 weeks. The lesion cavity was smaller in the treated rats when assessed by both histological (-37%) and imaging (-50%) methods. The accumulation of ED1-immunoreactive microglia/macrophages at the lesion was similar in treated and control rats. CONCLUSIONS: Although delayed treatment reduced intraspinal inflammation and pain, motor function was not improved, revealing decreased efficacy at the more clinically feasibly treatment onset. Long-term anti-alpha4 mAb treatment starting 2 hours after SCI improved neurological outcomes, with tissue sparing near the lesion and no impairment of the late immune response to injury. These findings reveal no disadvantage of long-lasting immunosuppression by the treatment but show that efficacy depends upon very early delivery.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,681
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,608

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,058
Tête enseignante GPT0,394
Écart entre enseignants0,336 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations27
Publié2009
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Neurosurgery SpineMême sujetSpinal Cord Injury ResearchTravaux en français237 207