Low Levels of Amlodipine in Breast Milk and Plasma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Few clinical reports have addressed the use of the antihypertensive drug amlodipine during breastfeeding. The objective of this study is to characterize concentration-time profiles of amlodipine in maternal and infant plasma, and milk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Plasma and breast milk samples were obtained from eight nursing mothers and their nine newborn nursing infants (median postnatal age: 6.5 days, range 5-7 days). Participants were recruited from February 2009 to June 2009. Multiple blood and milk samples were obtained from the mothers over a 24 hours dosing interval. The blood of infants was also obtained at before and 8 hours after nursing. Amlodipine concentrations were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography. Relative infant dose (RID) was calculated by dividing the infant's dose via milk in mg/kg/day by the maternal dose in mg/kg/day, assuming that a daily intake of milk is 150 mL/kg/day in the infants. RESULTS: Maximal amlodipine concentrations in mothers ranged from 4.4 to 14.7 ng/mL in plasma, and 6.5 to 19.7 ng/mL in milk (Average milk/plasma ratio: 1.4). RID was 3.4% of the maternal weight-adjusted dose. All plasma concentrations in infants were under the quantitation limit (0.4 ng/mL). CONCLUSION: Infant exposure to amlodipine in breast milk appears very small, suggesting that amlodipine can be used with little influence on infants during breastfeeding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".