MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1869228284 · doi:10.3171/2012.5.aospine12112

Pharmacology of riluzole in acute spinal cord injury

2012· article· en· W1869228284 on OpenAlexaff
Diana S‐L Chow, Yang Teng, Elizabeth G. Toups, Bizhan Aarabi, James S. Harrop, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Michele M. Johnson, Maxwell Boakye, Ralph F. Frankowski, Michael G. Fehlings, Robert G. Grossman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRiluzoleMedicinePharmacokineticsSpinal cord injuryVolume of distributionAnesthesiaPopulationClinical trialPharmacologyInternal medicineSpinal cordGlutamate receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: The aim of this paper was to characterize individual and population pharmacokinetics of enterally administered riluzole in a Phase 1 clinical trial of riluzole as a neuroprotective agent in adults 18-70 years old with acute spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: Thirty-five individuals with acute SCI, American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale Grades A-C, neurological levels from C-4 to T-12, who were enrolled in the Phase 1 clinical trial sponsored by the North American Clinical Trials Network for Treatment of Spinal Cord Injury, received 50 mg riluzole twice daily for 28 doses. The first dose was administered at a mean of 8.7 ± 2.2 hours postinjury. Trough plasma samples were collected within 1 hour predose, and peak plasma samples were collected 2 hours postdose on Days 3 and 14 of treatment. Riluzole concentrations were quantified by high-performance liquid chromatography assay. The data were analyzed for individual and population pharmacokinetics using basic structural and covariate models. The pharmacokinetic measures studied were the peak concentration (C(max)), trough concentration (C(min)), systemic exposure (AUC(0-12)), clearance (CL/F), and volume of distribution (V_F) normalized by the bioavailability (F). RESULTS: The C(max) and AUC(0-12) achieved in SCI patients were lower than those in ALS patients on the same dose basis, due to a higher CL and larger V. The pharmacokinetics of riluzole (C(max), C(min), AUC(0-12), CL, and V) changed during the acute and subacute phases of SCI during the 14 days of therapy. It was consistently observed in patients at all clinical sites that C(max), C(min), and AUC(0-12) (128.9 ng/ml, 45.6 ng/ml, and 982.0 ng × hr/ml, respectively) were significantly higher on Day 3 than on Day 14 (76.5 ng/ml, 19.1 ng/ml, and 521.0 ng × hr/ml, respectively). These changes resulted from lower CL (49.5 vs 106.2 L/hour) and smaller V (557.1 vs 1297.9/L) on Day 3. No fluid imbalance or cytochrome P 1A2 induction due to concomitant medications was identified during the treatment course to account for such increases in V and CL, respectively. Possible mechanisms underlying these changes are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of clinical pharmacokinetics of riluzole in patients with SCI. The C(max) and AUC(0-12) achieved in SCI patients were lower than those in ALS patients on the same dose basis, due to a higher clearance and larger volume of distribution in SCI patients. The finding in SCI patients of an increase in the clearance and distribution of riluzole between the 3rd and 14th days after SCI, with a lower plasma concentration of riluzole on the 14th day, stresses the importance of monitoring changes in drug metabolism after SCI in interpreting the safety and efficacy of therapeutic drugs that are used in clinical trials in SCI. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00876889.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery SpineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207