MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022336602 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v73i2.2979

Compounded Topical Amitriptyline for Neuropathic Pain: In Vitro Release from Compounding Bases and Potential Correlation with Clinical Efficacy

2020· article· en· W3022336602 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Ayah Shakshuki, Pollen Yeung, Remigius U. Agu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicAdvancements in Transdermal Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsAmitriptylineCompoundingPermeationPharmacologyDrugPoloxamerMedicineChemistryChromatographyMembraneOrganic chemistryCopolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACTBackground: Topical amitriptyline has been described as having mixed clinical efficacy for neuropathic pain. A few case reports using higher concentrations of this compound found clinical benefit, but many of these studies did not describe the components used in formulating the amitriptyline preparations.Objective:To generate reproducible clinical measures of the characteristics of amitriptyline diffusion from selected compounding bases, to support a scientific approach to base selection when compounding this drug for neuropathic pain.Methods: Amitriptyline hydrochloride (1%, 5%, and 10%) was compounded with 3 proprietary compounding bases: Lipoderm base, Emollient Cream, and Mediflo 30 pluronic lecithin organogel (PLO) gel. In vitro release of the drug from each base and subsequent permeation across artificial human skin were investigated with the Franz diffusion system. Amitriptyline release mechanisms were determined with kinetic models. How quickly and to what extent the drug leaves each base to diffuse through the skin were characterized by determining steady-state flux, cumulative permeation, and lag times.Results: Release of amitriptyline was significantly higher from the Mediflo PLO gel than from the Lipoderm base or Emollient Cream (p < 0.05). Mean cumulative drug release after 24 h, from the 10% formulation, was 23.9% (standard deviation [SD] 4.1%) for Lipoderm base, 41.8% (SD 3.1%) for Emollient Cream, and 53.2% (SD 7.7%) for Mediflo PLO gel. A high percentage of amitriptyline was retained in all 3 bases. Although amitriptyline release was highest with Mediflo PLO gel, this base resulted in significantly lower cumulative permeation relative to Lipoderm base and Emollient Cream (p < 0.05). There was a strong overall correlation between amitriptyline concentration, lag time, and flux. Higher concentrations were associated with significantly lower lag times and increased flux. The highest lag time and flux were observed for Mediflo PLO gel.Conclusion: These data indicate that the therapeutic effectiveness of compounded amitriptyline for neuropathic pain depends on its diffusion out of the compounding bases and penetration through the skin. RÉSUMÉContexte : L’efficacité clinique de l’amitriptyline topique contre les douleurs neuropathiques a été décrite comme étant variable. Quelques rapports utilisant des concentrations plus élevées de cette base indiquent des avantages cliniques, mais bon nombre d’entre eux ne décrivent pas les composants des préparations d’amitriptyline.Objectif : Établir des mesures cliniques reproductibles des caractéristiques de la diffusion de l’amitriptyline selon une approche scientifique de la sélection des bases pour la préparation de ce médicament contre les douleurs neuropathiques.Méthodes : Le chlorohydrate d’amitriptyline (1 %, 5 % et 10 %) a été mélangé à trois bases de préparations magistrales brevetées : la base Lipoderm, la crème émolliente et le gel Mediflo PLO 30. La liberation in vitro du médicament de chaque base et la perméation qui s’en est suivie dans la peau humaine artificielle ont été étudiées à l’aide du système de diffusion Franz. La définition des mécanismes de libération de l’amitriptyline repose sur des modèles cinétiques. La rapidité et la durée de libération du médicament de chaque base pour se diffuser dans la peau ont été caractérisées par la détermination du flux constant, de la perméation cumulée et des temps de latence.Résultats : La libération de l’amitriptyline était sensiblement plus élevée quand le produit était mélangé au gel Mediflo PLO plutôt qu’à la base Lipoderm ou à la crème émolliente (p < 0,05). La libération cumulée du médicament, formule 10 %, après 24 h était de 23,9 % (écart type [É.T.] ± 4,1 %) avec la base Lipoderm; 41,8 % (É.T. ± 3,1 %) avec la crème émolliente et 53,2 % (É.T. ± 7,7 %) avec le gel Mediflo PLO. Les trois bases retenaient un pourcentage élevé d’amitriptyline. Bien que la libération d’amitriptyline était plus élevée en présence du gel Mediflo PLO, la perméation cumulée de cette base par rapport à celle de la base Lipoderm et de la crème émolliente était sensiblement moins élevée (p < 0,05). L’observation a révélé une forte corrélation générale entre la concentration d’amitriptyline, le temps de latence et le flux. Les concentrations plus élevées étaient associées à des temps de latence sensiblement moins élevés. C’est le gel Mediflo PLO qui a démontré une supériorité du temps de latence et du flux.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicAdvancements in Transdermal Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207