Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. jana.sawynok@dal.caThe July 2004 issue of Anesthesiology contained a report by Estebe and Myers1demonstrating neurotoxic effects of amitriptyline when injected in high doses immediately adjacent to the rat sciatic nerve. Local anesthetic properties have been demonstrated with high doses of amitriptyline,2,3and local anesthetics also have been shown to produce neurotoxicity after similar methods of administration.4The demonstration of neurotoxic effects following local administration is an important reminder of the need for careful assessment of novel routes of drug administration.Unfortunately, there is a significant error in the calculation of the total dose administered in the Estebe and Myers1study. Thus, they inject 0.2 ml of 25 mg/ml or 79.6 mm amitriptyline as their highest dose and compute this to correspond to a dose of 16 nmol. However, this dose actually corresponds to a dose of 16 μmol; therefore their dose computation is in error by a factor of 1000 (table 1, section A).1The doses administered are comparable to those administered in demonstrating local anesthetic properties of amitriptyline (table 1, sections B1, B2)2,3but are significantly higher than those administered in producing antinociception (table 1, section C).5,6Much of their discussion regarding amitriptyline systematically perpetuates the thousand-fold error in calculations, and this results in some very misleading considerations.After peripheral administration, by injection locally into the dorsal or plantar surface of the hindpaw, amitriptyline produces antinociception in rat models of ongoing (formalin test) or neuropathic pain (spinal nerve ligation model).5,6Efficacy of locally administered amitriptyline has also been demonstrated in a rat model of diabetic neuropathy.7In each of those studies, doses of 100 nmol amitriptyline produced antinociception against spontaneous (formalin) and evoked (thermal, mechanical) behaviors. This dose, however, had no effect on thermal latencies in the uninjured state8and did not produce tissue edema.9Increasing the dose of amitriptyline to 300 and 1000 nmol leads to increases in thermal thresholds in the uninjured state, which may reflect involvement of local anesthetic properties.9These higher doses also cause tissue edema that, at the 1000 nmol dose, persists to some degree at 24 h, but mechanisms involved in edema are unclear.9The Estebe and Myers1study evaluates doses of 2,000–16,000 nmol amitriptyline injected immediately adjacent to the sciatic nerve in rats. When amitriptyline up to 100 nmol is administered locally into the hindpaw of rats in models of antinociception, it is administered at a much lower total concentration and into tissue that is not necessarily in the immediate vicinity of the nerve. There is no data to suggest that neurotoxic or overt local anesthetic properties are involved in antinociception at doses up to 100 nmol. Indeed, the actions of amitriptyline at these doses are substantially blocked by methylxanthine adenosine receptor antagonists,5–7and it is very unlikely that such antagonists would block neurotoxic or local anesthetic actions. This issue is raised in the context of implicating a receptor-operated mechanism in the action of amitriptyline rather than in the context of implicating any single particular mechanism in its action. Thus, amitriptyline is a complex drug with a range of pharmacological actions (given acutely it blocks noradrenaline, 5-HT, and adenosine uptake, inhibits α-adrenergic, histamine H1, 5-HT2, and N -methyl-d-aspartate receptors, and blocks Na+, Ca2+, and even K+channels), and many of these effects could contribute to peripheral antinociception. Clearly, any form of topical application of amitriptyline to the skin in humans will need to proceed with due caution regarding the potential for local toxicity.Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. jana.sawynok@dal.ca
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».