MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126129139 · doi:10.1211/002235703765344577

Gastrointestinal mucosal injury following repeated daily oral administration of conventional formulations of indometacin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to pigs: a model for human gastrointestinal disease

2003· article· en· W2126129139 on OpenAlexafffund
K. D. Rainsford, Paul Stetsko, S Sirko, S Debski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effects
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsIndometacinAspirinCyclooxygenaseMedicineGastrointestinal tractPharmacologyNaproxenProstaglandinCapsuleOral administrationMyeloperoxidaseAntipyreticAnti-inflammatoryAnalgesicGastroenterologyInternal medicineInflammationChemistryPathologyEnzymeBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) vary in their propensity to cause damage in different regions of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract in laboratory animals and humans. This may depend on the type of drug formulation as well as the intrinsic pharmacological properties of the drugs. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of NSAIDs, with cyclooxygenase 1 and 2 inhibitory activity but with different potency as inhibitors of prostaglandin production, when given orally as tablet/capsule formulations of NSAIDs for 10 days to pigs, a species that has close resemblance in structure and function of the tract to that in humans. Three capsule or tablet formulations of NSAIDs were given orally to pigs for 10 days. GI bleeding was measured by determination of radioactive iron in the faeces from (59)Fe-pre-labelled red blood cells. The blood loss was compared with the pathological changes in the GI mucosa observed at autopsy, mucosal myeloperoxidase (MPO) activity as an index of leucocyte infiltration, and plasma and mucosal concentrations of the drugs at termination assayed by high-performance liquid chromatography. Mucosal damage and bleeding varied according to the type of NSAID. Gastroduodenal ulcers and lesions occurred with the cyclooxygenase inhibitors indometacin (indomethacin) (Indocid capsules 10 or 5 mg kg(-1) day(-1) b.i.d.), aspirin (USP tablets 150 mg kg(-1) day(-1) b.i.d) and naproxen (Apotex tablets 50 or 75 mg kg(-1) day(-1) b.i.d.), and there was an increase in the cumulative (i.e. 10-day) blood loss at higher doses of indometacin and naproxen, and with aspirin. There was no statistically significant increase in gastric or intestinal mucosal MPO activity in the non-damaged mucosa with these drugs and this was confirmed by histological observations in non-lesioned areas of the mucosa. Indometacin produced focal ulcers in the caecum but this was not observed with the other drugs. All the NSAIDs produced significant blood loss coincident with gastric ulceration but no increase in gastric or intestinal MPO activity. Plasma concentrations of the non-aspirin NSAIDs were within the range encountered therapeutically in humans. The mucosal concentrations of indometacin in the gastric and intestinal mucosa correlated with mucosal injury. These findings show that: (i) NSAIDs vary in their propensity to produce mucosal injury in different regions of the GI tract according to their pharmacological properties and formulation; (ii) mucosal injury from some NSAIDs may not directly relate to blood loss at low doses of NSAIDs and this may depend on inhibition of platelet aggregation; and (iii) the occurrence of caecal ulcers uniquely observed with indometacin treatment may be relevant to the development of intestinal pathology (e.g. diaphragm-like structures) seen occasionally in humans. These results suggest that the pig model employed in the present studies may be useful for investigations of GI damage from NSAID tablets/capsules, especially in regions that are generally inaccessible to routine endoscopic investigations in humans (e.g. the proximal regions of the large intestine).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 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
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy and PharmacologySame topicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effectsFrench-language works237,207