MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295949599 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2022.984108

Clinical effects and pharmacokinetics of nebulized lidocaine in healthy horses

2022· article· en· W4295949599 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jillian Minuto, Daniela Bedenice, Michelle L. Ceresia, Iman Zaghloul, Mark Böhlke, Melissa R. Mazan

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureCompanion Animal Health FundAmerican College of Veterinary Internal MedicineGrayson-Jockey Club Research FoundationU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsLidocaineMedicineAnesthesiaPharmacokineticsBronchoalveolar lavageBronchodilatorRespiratory systemLocal anestheticLungAsthmaPharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Nebulized lidocaine appears promising as a novel corticosteroid-sparing therapeutic for equine asthma, but its safety and pharmacokinetic behavior have yet to be confirmed. Objective To describe the effect of nebulized lidocaine on upper airway sensitivity, lung mechanics, and lower respiratory cellular response of healthy horses, as well as delivery of lidocaine to lower airways, and its subsequent absorption, clearance, and duration of detectability. Animals Six healthy university- and client-owned horses with normal physical examination and serum amyloid A, and no history of respiratory disease within 6 months. Methods Prospective, descriptive study evaluating the immediate effects of 1 mg/kg 4% preservative-free lidocaine following nebulization with the Flexineb®. Prior to and following nebulization, horses were assessed using upper airway endoscopy, bronchoalveolar lavage, and pulmonary function testing with esophageal balloon/pneumotachography and histamine bronchoprovocation. Additionally, blood and urine were collected at predetermined times following single-dose intravenous and nebulized lidocaine administration for pharmacokinetic analysis. Results Upper airway sensitivity was unchanged following lidocaine nebulization, and no laryngospasm or excessive salivation was noted. Lidocaine nebulization (1 mg/kg) resulted in a mean epithelial lining fluid concentration of 9.63 ± 5.05 μg/mL, and a bioavailability of 29.7 ± 7.76%. Lidocaine concentrations were higher in epithelial lining fluid than in systemic circulation (Cmax149.23 ± 78.74 μg/L, CELF:Cmaxplasma64.4, range 26.5–136.8). Serum and urine lidocaine levels remained detectable for 24 and 48 h, respectively, following nebulization of a single dose. Baseline spirometry, lung resistance and dynamic compliance, remained normal following lidocaine nebulization, with resistance decreasing post-nebulization. Compared to the pre-nebulization group, two additional horses were hyperresponsive following lidocaine nebulization. There was a significant increase in mean airway responsiveness post-lidocaine nebulization, based on lung resistance, but not dynamic compliance. One horse had BAL cytology consistent with airway inflammation both before and after lidocaine treatment. Conclusions Nebulized lidocaine was not associated with adverse effects on upper airway sensitivity or BAL cytology. While baseline lung resistance was unchanged, increased airway reactivity to histamine bronchoprovocation in the absence of clinical signs was seen in some horses following nebulization. Further research is necessary to evaluate drug delivery, adverse events, and efficacy in asthmatic horses.

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)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207