MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

TDM-Based Imipramine Treatment in Neuropathic Pain

2004· article· en· W2015366025 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Vestergaard Rasmussen, Troels S. Jensen, Søren H. Sindrup, Flemming W. Bach

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Drug Monitoring · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImipramineNeuropathic painMedicineAnalgesicTricyclicAnesthesiaHyperalgesiaPharmacokineticsPopulationChronic painDepression (economics)PharmacologyInternal medicineNociceptionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) are the best-documented treatment of neuropathic pain. TCAs have a pronounced interindividual pharmacokinetic variability and a narrow therapeutic index. The aim of this study was to characterize the plasma concentration-effect relationship of imipramine in neuropathic pain and to determine the usefulness of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of TCA treatment in a population with noncancer chronic pain. To do this, 83 patients with chronic noncancer neuropathic pain were included. Information on previous use of TCA was collected, and patients were tested for the presence of hyperalgesia. Pain intensity and pain relief were recorded, and the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Major Depression Inventory were completed before and during a TDM-based imipramine treatment. Imipramine dose was increased in steps of 25 mg/d every second week, and blood samples were taken at every dose. Endpoints were best possible pain relief, unacceptable side effects, or insufficient pain relief despite plasma drug level > 500 nmol/L. Dose range used was 10-300 mg/d. The study showed that imipramine 75 mg/d caused a 36-fold interindividual variation in steady-state plasma drug concentrations. In 46 responders (global pain relief > 25%) the plasma drug concentration at which an individual maximal analgesic effect was obtained ranged from 50 to 1400 nmol/L, but for the majority it was below 400 nmol/L. The concentration-effect relationship was similar for patients with central versus peripheral neuropathic pain and independent of the presence of hyperalgesia. Previous treatment failure with non-TDM TCA treatment was not a predictor of poor response to TDM-based treatment. In conclusion, there is a pronounced interindividual variability in concentration-effect relationship for imipramine treatment in neuropathic pain, but the majority of patients obtain a maximal analgesic effect at drug levels below 400 nmol/L. The concentration-effect relationship is similar for patients with central and peripheral neuropathic pain. Further studies are needed to document if TDM improves pain relief; however, TDM reduces the risk for toxicity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Drug MonitoringSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207