MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2617959997 · doi:10.1113/jp274100

Reply from Ryan L. Hoiland and Philip N. Ainslie

2017· letter· en· W2617959997 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Ryan L. Hoiland, Philip N. Ainslie

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Physiology · 2017
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Établissements canadiensOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Mots-clésVasomotionCerebral blood flowTranscranial DopplerMedicineVasodilationInternal medicineChemistryCardiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In the letter to the editor by Pun (2017), several points of concern are raised: (1) that there may have been a difference between the three cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitors we used relative to their effective suppression of prostaglandin production, (2) that carbon dioxide may have itself had an effect on our results, and (3) that the relative balance between COX1 and COX2 inhibition and the resulting effect on the balance between vasodilatory and vasoconstrictor prostaglandins of each drug must be considered. Although these questions were clearly addressed in our paper, and related reference list, we re-address these concerns below. Pun suggests we needed to account for the arterial blood gas parameters during our study. We used end-tidal forcing, which has notably been shown to produce very minor end-tidal to arterial gradients for CO2 (Tymko et al. 2016). Further, the stimulus was matched between trials; therefore, the cause for concern relative to arterial blood gas stimulus is misplaced. Additionally, it is suggested that ‘carbon dioxide itself might have altered blood gas parameters and the vasomotion as well’. Relative to the potential for vasomotion, of which we have published our stance on multiple times (Ainslie & Hoiland, 2014; Hoiland & Ainslie, 2016), the use of duplex ultrasound allows us to quantify large extra-cranial cerebral artery vasomotion (Thomas et al. 2015), as was the purpose of the study under discussion (Hoiland et al. 2016). This approach arguably allows for more parsimonious interpretation relative to previous studies (Ainslie & Hoiland, 2014), such as those using transcranial Doppler (e.g. Beaudin et al. 2014). Relative to the variable COX1 and COX2 selectivity between non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Park & Bavry, 2014), it is apparent that ketorolac and naproxen are both slightly more selective to COX2 while indomethacin is slightly more selective for COX1. While this may appear a cause for concern when comparing these drugs, the same lack of effect of COX inhibition on cerebral vascular CO2 reactivity has also been highlighted in studies using other drugs possessing a greater COX1 versus COX2 selectivity similar to indomethacin (INDO). For example, ibuprofen does not influence cerebral vascular CO2 reactivity in animal models, whereas INDO does (Chemtob et al. 1991), while aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) possesses no effect in humans (Markus et al. 1994). Therefore, contrary to the suggestion by Pun, it does not seem plausible that differences in COX1/COX2 selectivity impact the effectiveness of COX inhibitors on CO2 reactivity. The influence of several COX inhibitors that have been used to investigate cerebral vascular regulation by CO2 is summarized in Table 1. Given this marked difference between INDO and other COX inhibitors, we found that INDO is a potent inhibitor of cyclic AMP-dependent protein kinase (Kantor & Hampton, 1978; Goueli & Ahmed, 1980), which is integral to the regulation of smooth muscle tone (Adelstein & Conti, 1978). Given the potent inhibition of cAMP by indomethacin, it is difficult to contest that this mechanism is not inhibiting vasodilatation during hypercapnia; however, it may be more reasonable to contest that cAMP inhibition may not represent the entire difference in effect between drugs (INDO, naproxen, ketorolac). In this regard, some points raised by Pun may be relevant in explaining a portion of the difference in drug effects (albeit a relatively small portion in our opinion, if at all). However, previous research has indicated the doses we used for INDO and naproxen produce similar, and marked, inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis (Eriksson et al. 1983), while a study using a lower INDO dose (0.8 mg kg−1; Table 1) showed consistent reductions in cerebral vascular CO2 reactivity (Wennmalm et al. 1984). Therefore, the rationale to assume the difference in action may be due to dosage, as Pun suggests, appears unfounded. Further, under this assumption that prostaglandin synthesis inhibition is not appreciably different between the drugs under discussion, differences in the potential upregulation of other arachidonic acid end products (20-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid and lipoxygenase generating vasoactive mediators) would also appear to be quite unlikely. Considering the importance of exploring longer duration dosing as Pun suggests, these data have been previously published – they highlight that INDO continues to reduce cerebral vascular CO2 reactivity following 1 week of 0.8 mg kg−1 three times daily (Eriksson et al. 1983). As summarized in our original article (Hoiland et al. 2016), and reiterated here, INDO must be acting via a permissive mechanism(s) unrelated to COX inhibition given other COX inhibitors do not affect cerebral vascular CO2 reactivity in healthy humans (Table 1). Given the evidence on INDO's potent inhibition of cAMP-dependent protein kinase (Kantor & Hampton, 1978; Goueli & Ahmed, 1980), and cAMP's integral action in regulating vascular tone (Adelstein & Conti, 1978), cAMP dependent protein kinase inhibition seems a strong candidate for this permissive action. Discussion of these topics is imperative in furthering our understanding of drug-mediated changes in vascular function, and highlights that the potential for effects in addition to any drugs primary route of action need to be considered when developing an experimental paradigm. The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. P.N.A. receives funding from the Gouvernement du Canada/Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Conseil de Recherches en Sciences Naturelles et en Génie du Canada) and a Canada Research Chair in cerebrovascular physiology. Ryan Hoiland is supported by a NSERC post-graduate scholarship.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,028
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,027

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,037
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,003
Communication savante0,0040,007
Science ouverte0,0030,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0280,047
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,008

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 Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,272
Écart entre enseignants0,242 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

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

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

En bref

Citations7
Publié2017
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of PhysiologyMême sujetTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesTravaux en français237 207